Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 02/17/2022
Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 2/10/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 February 17, 2022 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry- Secretary Christopher Vernon Paul Shea, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Robert Klucik, Jr. Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selec ted to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. February 2022 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 2/10/2022 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. These items have been continued from the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***This item has been continued from the December 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting to the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and is currently continued indefinitely*** PL20210002450 Murals in the BGTCRA- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, relating to murals in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to create a definition for a mural; amend the standards for murals; and create a public hearing process for murals that are subject to Public Art Committee review, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter One General Provisions, including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Four Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; Chapter Ten Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including Section 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LDC Planning Manager] February 2022 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 2/10/2022 2. PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to allow a drive-thru restaurant instead of a carwash in the Immokalee 7-Eleven Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by amending Ordinance Number 2021-22 to add eating places with a drive-thru and food stores as permitted uses, remove the car wash use and related developer commitment, reduce the total commercial square footage from 5,650 to 5,250, and increase the maximum two-way PM peak hour net new trips generation limit from 157+/- to 167+/-, on property located at the northwest corner of Main Street (SR 29) and North 9th Street, Immokalee, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.04+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] B. Noticed 10. Old Business 11. New Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 02/17/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: These items have been continued from the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 02/17/2022 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 01/20/2022 1:44 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 01/20/2022 1:44 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 01/20/2022 1:44 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 01/20/2022 1:44 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Zoning Director Review Skipped 01/20/2022 1:44 PM Growth Management Department Diane Lynch GMD Deputy Dept Head Skipped 01/20/2022 1:44 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 02/17/2022 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 October 21, 2021 Page 1 of 63 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 21, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Joe Schmitt Christopher T. Vernon Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 2 of 63 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN FRYFER: Good morning, everyone. The October 21, 2021 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission will please come to order. Everyone, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Vice-chair Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a forum of seven. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We do have a change to the agenda we'd like to add under old business, an item to talk about the November 18th Planning Commission start time at 2:00 p.m. and the night meeting that follows it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And that will be under old business. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Old business. Okay. We'll put that in as 10A, I guess. I also have a proposed addendum to the agenda. I received an e-mail on behalf of The League of Women Voters of Collier County and, also, Florida Gulf Coast University requesting additional time for a presentation and early positioning on our agenda of November 19th. Not today, but November 19th. And I'd like to add discussion and decision on that request as an item under new business. And let's call it 11C, if that be without objection. Seeing none, that's what we'll do. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is November 4th. Anyone know if he or she won't be able to attend that meeting? All right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Go right ahead, commissioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You said November 19th? CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I said 19th, I meant 18th. Thank you. So we will have a full house then again on that time. That's good. November 18th, we'll start at 5:05 p.m. and our old business -- MR. BOSI: During the discussion items under 10A, we will discuss the start time is going to be suggested at 2:00 p.m., because we have some items that will be heard before the 5:05 meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know, but I said evening meeting. MR. BOSI: Oh, no problem. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, I think I said this during the last meeting, but I won't be able to make the November 18th meeting. I think you decided you still had a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to travel as well, so I will not be here. I think I sent a note on that already. I won't be available. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 3 of 63 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We're going to have a bifurcated meeting. The evening meeting portion of the meeting, for those who will be able to attend, will start at 5:05 p.m. We do not have a full day's worth to precede that, so when we come to old business, we'll talk about how best to do the arithmetic so that we're not standing around or waiting around for a long time until the 5:05 p.m. Maybe we have an opportunity to get an early dinner or something without having to do a lot of driving either. So that's what we'll do. Approval of minutes. We have one set before us for action. That's the minutes of September 16, 2021. Any corrections changes or additions? If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passed unanimously. Thank you. BCC report recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: On October 12th, the board on the summary agenda approved the GMPA for the world French mixed use district and Mike will tell you about the -- MR. BOSI: And the board also overturned the staff approval of an SDP for a food truck within a commercial three zoning district within the Isle of Capri, as well as overturned an official interpretation from the zoning director that a food truck park was a permitted use in the C3 zoning district, provided further direction to staff to initiate an LDC amendment that would make food truck parks a conditional use within the commercial zoning districts that allow eating places, and is basically, you know, related to the potential disruption food truck parks could have on the surrounding residential properties based upon noise and traffic and other issues such as that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I happen to have watched that on TV and found it quite instructional as to the interplay between the HEX and staff and the board. I came away from that meeting more educated on those issues, so if anybody has the time, I would recommend watching that meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. It's a learning experience. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If I could get technical assistance with -- for some reason I don't have the internet again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt, you also -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Without getting into details, many years ago we had a food truck issue at Estey and Airport, another food truck issue, and somehow, at that time, a food truck was not considered commercial. I don't know if -- it goes back probably ten, 15 years when they first put that up with what was supposed to be portable or moveable, but ended up being permanent and I remember that went back and forth with the board, and it was determined at that time that -- it's still there, but I can't recall if it was a conditional use. I just was puzzled by the fact, many years ago that ruling, and then all of the sudden now we deemed it within the use of a commercial use. But the board overturned your decision and it's coming back as an LDC amendment and that is being now proffered by staff? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 4 of 63 Would you expect, would that come or is now the petitioner going to have to request a rezoning because of -- the LDC amendment could take another six months, could it not, or longer. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning and zoning director. The Estey and Airport, that was a conditional use. You're correct. The staff made their basis off of a 2016 HEX determination that determined food truck parks were a permitted use in the Bayshore neighborhood commercial C4 zoning district -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I remember that, because it was an overlay. MR. BOSI: Right. And they directed us, as I said we're in the process of developing that LDC amendment, but we're also developing an LDC amendment that's going to change how the comparable use determinations are provided for when you have a straight zoning district, we ever going to make them conditional uses as well. The board was concerned that if you had a location that was zoned C2 and you had a comparable use determination in that C2 zoning district, if it was deemed a permitted use, that permitted use is allowed for all C2 zoning districts throughout the county, and they felt that notification of adjoining property owners were lacking within that process; therefore, we're going to require a comparable use determination to also follow the conditional use process so it would only being site specific for that parcel requesting that comparable use determination and, therefore, allowing the adjoining property owners to have more of a standing or a say within the process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So in this case, is the petitioner now going to wait for staff to -- MR. BOSI: I'm not sure what the petitioner is going to do. They do not have an approved SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. BOSI: They could wait for staff to initiate it or they could take an action and seek a conditional use at the location, but we haven't heard any indications. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. They can turn around and submit their own application. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What about the food truck on 41, the strip mall across from the park. MR. BOSI: At the Hitching Post. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: That was approved in 2019. That was approved based upon the staff's classification that they were permitted uses. That was not challenged; therefore, that remains legal nonconforming use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the rest of the planning commissioners, it does open a door for proliferation of these food trucks and, essentially, they become permanent. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They really are not mobile food trucks; they are, for lack of a better term, a permanent truck stop or whatever you want to call it, and I think that -- the board -- I thank the board, at least for providing the guidance to the staff in order to clear that up, because it will become an issue and then I guess this now will help clarify the process, and the LDCE amendment will make it very clear of what needs to be done. MR. BOSI: Yes. The most important part the board wants is the participation of the adjoining property owners for their building to have their say within the issue, and everyone involved in, I think, feels that that's an appropriate move, and we're acting underneath the guidance of the board. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One of the adjoining property owners of this certain case is now coming in with another proposal, you said? MR. BOSI: Yes, but that's a separate issue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, we have nothing before us on consent, so we'll go right into public hearings, advertised. The first public hearing is matter PL120210001270 and that was the 2021 combination Annual Update and Inventory Report or commonly known as the AUIR and the Capital Improvement Element of the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 5 of 63 Collier County Growth Management Plan known as the CIE. We, as Collier County's official local planning agency, are required annually to review and make recommendations to the BCC with respect to these documents and so by virtue of that law, that is what we're doing and what we will be about this morning. This is a combined hearing and since it's legislative in nature, there will be no need to swear in witnesses or to make disclosures, so staff, you have the floor. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me. Commissioner Schmitt, your light is still on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mike, just before you start, how many counties are actually complying with this state-mandated process? MR. BOSI: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As I understand -- MR. BOSI: Thank you, Joe. That was one of the things I was going to -- I have spoken a little bit to COMMISSIONER FRY about it. I was going to talk about the AUIR is a unique process within the State of Florida in the sense that Collier County is the only county that does its AUIR. We're going to get into the general public to explain what an AUIR is, but we are the only county, the only jurisdiction that provides the transparency of our capital improvement program in association with our population growth that I am aware of. In 2009 we had provided the Planning Commission a comparison, a level of service comparison and we did in deep -- the eye of research, and we found that we are -- and now that concurrency has been made optional by the state and by the Department of Economic Opportunity, we are still one of the only -- or the only county that provides such a level of detailed effort to allow for public participation within the capital improvement programming. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At one time it was statutorily required, and it may still be, but I don't believe there's -- like you said, any other county that complies. MR. BOSI: Well, it was never statutorily required for the Category B, the nonconcurrency. It was always statutorily required and it is still statutorily required for the Category A facilities, such as your public utilities, as well as storm water. The other Category A facilities that we have included are optional and the Board of County Commissioners has maintained a compliment to those. And we'll get into that a little bit more, but yes, this is a unique process that this county undertakes that no other county within the State of Florida does. And with that, I put together a real short eight-to-nine-slide presentation, real high overview of what the AUIR is, the Planning Commission. And the members who have been here for a while will have had many of these under their belts, but most people in the general public are listening on Collier TV would probably be a little bit confused, but what it is -- and if I can get the slide control to operate here. MR. KLATZOW: Mr. Chairman, I just ask staff to confirm that the document I had on Monday is still -- hasn't been altered, the agenda? MR. BOSI: It was amended at the beginning of this morning. MR. KLATZOW: Oh, it was. Okay. So I have to download a different one. I just want to make sure I'm working off the right document. MR. BOSI: Understood. So what is the AUIR? The AUIR is the annual one year snapshot in time of projected needs and required capital improvements for the next five years based upon the projected population increases against the BCC adopted levels of service standard. And it should be noted that this snapshot changes as the demand equation evolves. So what that means is as we add more population, we need to add the corresponding infrastructure to be able to handled the additional demands of that population. Essentially, making sure that our levels of service for any one of our infrastructure providers does not fall below the adopted level of service that's been endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners. There is three categories that we have. Category A, there are concurrency facility, roads, drainage potable water, waste water, solid waste, parks and rec and schools and they're all tied to the Capital 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 6 of 63 Improvement Element. The Capital Improvement Element is an element of our Growth Management Plan. It's updated every year for the five-year capital programs that the county is proposing. Our Category B facilities, they're none concurrency facilities. Jails, law enforcements, libraries, emergency medical service and government buildings. These are not applied during concurrency, but every year we bring the AUIR to make sure that we are maintaining the levels of service associated with those facilities. About five years ago we added a Category C, which is another nonconcurrency facility and that's the beach and inlets, and that's the schedule of beach re-nourishments and the activities that we have within our coastal area. When I mentioned concurrency, it is a system that we've had in place and it's the facilities and services necessary to maintain the adopted level of service standards that are available when the impacts of development's occur, which are contained within CIE policies and the land development code. So what that means is when you have a PUD request or a rezone request that comes to you, we'll do a courtesy evaluation of the available infrastructure. It's not a hard application of concurrency, but when a plat is submitted or a site development plan is submitted, that's when we go through the concurrency analysis. We make sure the roadway system has the volume to handle the capacity that's associated with it; that's there's capacity within all the utility systems to be able to handle the demands of that particular project; that there's park lands available for the associated, if it's a residential community that's coming in with a plat, that we have enough acreage to be able to handle the additional populations. So when they come in for the SDP or for the -- their plat, that's when concurrency is actually applied. And it's driven by population. It's driven by our -- our CIE has as component that says we will utilize the BEBR medium population projections that are provided by the University of Florida Bureau and Economic Business Research, so when I say BEBR, that's what it's referring to, the University of Florida's population projection division. And we also have the seasonal increase. As we all know, when January, February and March rolls around, our roads become a little bit more crowded; our beaches become a little bit more crowded. Its because we've seasonal influx, and within that seasonal influx, we've determined through analysis of increases within our volume within our traffic count systems, within our utility systems, that it averages out to about 20 percent and that's -- that's the markup. So it's a 20 percent seasonal markup. And please, if you have questions, any time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, has that 20 percent figure changed over time. I think we've all heard more people are living here full time. More people moving down from up north. Has that risen over time? MR. BOSI: It has stayed static for the entire 19 years that I've been involved with the -- with planning in the AUIR, and I think it's proportional. We are having -- we have a larger permanent population, but as our -- as our permanent population increases, our seasonal units increase as well, so what we have found by looking at our utility numbers, at the traffic counts, that that 20 percent is still the appropriate to deal with that seasonal influx. COMMISSIONER FRY: I misspoke. I guess it would be the opposite. If there were more people here full time, then the seasonal increase would be less, right? But you're saying it has not really changed. I guess -- I feel like we've experienced higher traffic in the summertime than we used to have, because more people are here full time and then, of course, still a large increase during wintertime, but you're saying it really has stayed constant in terms of statistics. MR. BOSI: It's stayed constant in terms of statistics, and why you feel that there's more people in the summertime compared to five or ten years ago is because there is. We have more population. That's a little quirk that we're going to get into as well related to the decennial census and the relationship to the BEBR numbers, but I'll get into that in one second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm just wondering how you calculate that 20 percent, and monitor and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 7 of 63 keep it updated. What's the criteria? MR. BOSI: Good example would be, say, from the potable water usage. They'll look at the numbers on a monthly basis and they see that there is an increase of anywhere from 15 to 18 to 20 to 23 percent as you start to hit your January, your February, and your March numbers. Look at your traffic counts that are on the roads. Those are run on an annual basis, on a regular basis. So when you have an increase of 15 to 20 percent of additional trips on the road system, that's how we make the determination that there's an approximate 20 percent increase within our population during our seasonal months. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So that adjustment is not just for people who have places here, it's for vacationers as well, it's just -- MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes. I mean, for the most part, the seasonal influx are vacationer, and they may be here for three to four months, but they're vacationers nonetheless. They're not considered permanent population. So the question is how much do we build? The majority of our AUIR categories are tied strictly to population. The easiest and simplest would be an example within our library buildings. The new population we expect over the five-year period, we multiply that against our level of service standard, which in libraries happens to be .33 square feet per person. That's the adopted level of service that the Board of County Commissioners have adopted. For this five-year period we're going to add 32,433 people. When you multiply that against your level of service, your .33 square feet and as a requirement to satisfy this five-year period, we need to add 10,703 square feet of additional library space. Now, it doesn't always work out exactly, because a library sometimes doesn't always conform to that exact number, but that's how -- that's what drives the expansion. That's what drives the justification for the system expansion within libraries, or within EMS or within government buildings. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would think you have an additional level of analysis, which is where the people are moving so that we can allocate the additional library capacity in those areas? I'm thinking you can't be general about this. MR. BOSI: Absolutely not, but that's a separate issue. The numbers that we get from the University of BEBR are not distributed from a geographic standpoint. They are just a gross number. What we have for the geographic distribution is another planning tool that's been adopted by the board and it was adopted by the board in 2010 as part of the east of 951 study and that's the Collier interactive growth model. I think you've heard lots of references from a lot of GMP amendments when we try to compare market studies. The growth models utilize that to allocate where we expect those future growth populations to be located, and that is the tool that's more valuable to determine how we do our master planning for any one of our facilities as to where the next geographic area that will be the most efficient to serve the greatest new population, and that's -- so it works in combination with another planning tool that we have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, do you have one? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. The example you use with libraries, that's just an example of the calculation, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because the question I would have, why would you add space when the foot traffic is dropping in the libraries? That's -- MR. BOSI: That's always been one of the questions, let's utilize door counts, and door counts sometimes are a little more difficult, but we do factor into -- and transportation and utilities has a little bit more sophisticated -- and we'll get to that in the next slide -- where they not only -- it's not just population, but it's usage numbers, and that was -- that's always been one of the questions the Planning Commission has struggled with. Why are we just using population numbers; let's use usage numbers. It's difficult on some of the Category B facilities in terms of the majority of counties will utilize population as their levels of service standard, but usage most certainly does play and factor in terms of how far we do go. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 8 of 63 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Doesn't the .33 square foot per person, if it was done correctly, would contemplate usage. MR. BOSI: The .33 square feet is a static adopted level of service. Now, usage of the library service is influenced by the board's decision to make the recommendation that .33 square feet is the appropriate standard, but for the capital improvement programming, that .33 square feet is a static number that we multiply against our expected population, because that's the level of service that's been adopted. Now, the underlying factors of what led the Board of County Commissioners to adopt that .33 square feet, usage plays a role within it, but how we do our capital improvement programming is strictly, this is the number of the population we expect, here's the square footage we will need to satisfy to attain that level of service that's been adopted by the board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Paul's question is an excellent example of how people's patterns, behavior patterns will change what the level of service standard ought to be. What is the process by which the -- and how often are those level of service standards changed? MR. BOSI: The level of service standards could be changed on an annual basis. Traditionally, where the level of service changes start is when the master plan for each one of those facilities, because each one of infrastructure providers also have associated master plans. When those master plans are taken to the Board of County Commissioners, usage is one of the things that underlines those discussions and how those master plans are informed, and that influences the Board of County Commissioners and that's where they normally will be influenced to suggest changes to the levels of service. And here's of the quirk that I was talking about. If you look on the top, that's a chart we always provide within our staff reports related to the AUIR, and it gives you the population projections. We reach back six years, so 2016. One of the things that we look at on this chart, and it is at least comforting to me and comforting, I think, to a lot of our infrastructure providers, is you look at our growth percentage annualized, the last call. So let's say annually, what's the percentage of growth? If you look at it, we've been -- and this is -- if we went back 15 years, you would find that we've been steady about right under two percent has been our annual growth rate almost to a T for the last 15 years. That's a pretty steady accumulation of population. We haven't had tremendous -- expected tremendous spikes within those periods. But one of the points that I wanted to let you know related to the decennial census. The decennial census came in and said in 2020, the permanent population for Collier County is 375,752 people. If you look back last year, the 2020 AUIR that you were working on, in 2020 the BEBR numbers said that we had approximately 388,000 people. So that's 12,376 people more that we were planning for that the census said that those people really aren't here yet. So what that means is we get to push out that next wave of improvement. It's not as -- as immediate as we thought just last year, because the population numbers were a little bit higher than what -- than what they actually were. This happened in 2010, during the 2010 census, the 2011 AUIR we had the same type of discrepancy, and the numbers that we are obligated to utilize by our gross management plan is from the University of Florida, the BEBR numbers. Next year those BEBR numbers will be influenced by the census bureau numbers and you can expect a revision down in terms of the population, so it takes a little bit of time for it to correlate through the system and through the numbers that BEBR will provide for us, but just to give you a heads-up that the numbers that we're using are a little bit inflated compared to the population that we will be expecting next year to be working from. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Quick question. More of an education. How do you define permanent population? How do you know how long people -- do you go into taxes to see who claims residency? How do you do that? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 9 of 63 MR. BOSI: It's portions of that. It's also, they look at the questionnaires that come out from the decennial census of do you live here full time; is this your home for more than six months out of the year. Six months and a day makes you a permanent population. So those type of questions that the census bureau asks to discern this information is what's utilized to make those determinations, as well as utility hookups, electrical hookups, those other type of hard empirical data that's also utilized by the census bureau and the University of Florida to make those determinations. As I mentioned, but it's not only population. It's the key metric for the majority of our Category B facilities, but within our Category A facilities we get a little bit more sophisticated, specifically, road and bridges. Road and bridges, population doesn't really tie into their expansion plans. Of course, population is associated with the trips that are on the road system, but it's the traffic counts. It's the trips that are generated by each one of our road segments that have the counters on them makes the determination, how many trips are we experiencing; how many trips do we have within the volume, the capacity; how many trips available. So that makes the determination for when the next improvement is going to be -- or be suggested within the system. Waste water. Wastewater and potable water also utilized historic demands. They also have a population projections, and plus they have -- the Board of County Commissioners is -- this is back towards 2001, 2002, they told the public utility system, be conservative. Add an increase towards what you expect that population -- the usage demand to be, because we never want to run out of the ability to flush the toilet. We never want to be able to run out of the ability to provide service from that tap water. So they have a little extra cushion that goes on just to ensure that those critical facilities are going to be available to the population when they demand them. Storm water is more focused upon not population, but basin studies and the water management plan that says baseline. Solid waste is associated with landfill disposal capacity. I think that's one of the success stories of general -- of the Collier County government that really doesn't get a lot of accolades. When I started the process for AUIR, 2006 was my first year. We were projecting 2024, 2025 as the end of our landfill capacity. The solid waste team has done a terrific job. We're now looking at 2067 to 2070 is when we expect that incapacity to be at. One of the greatest reasons for that is we're one of the earliest counties to have a successful recycling program. Now, we've grown that recycling program to take so much of that material out of the landfill, but also, technology has helped us expand the ability to extend the life. And as is a community, one of the hardest things to do is to site a new landfill, so the longer we can push that off to the future, the better we are from a need capacity. And then you have coastal zone. It's your adopted master plans and sustainable standards that really dictate when the beach re-nourishment and the other activities are going to go on. What we're looking for from the Planning Commission today is just review of the AUIR, approval of the 2021 AUIR and recommendation to prove the Category A facilities to be part of the schedule CIE update to the GMP. And that's the -- like I said, it was just a high level overview presentation of it. We have representatives from the majority of our AUIR participants. There's no scheduled presentations. The way that we traditionally would do it is just ask the Planning Commission for questions for the individual divisions or departments and just go forward that way. With that, that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Any questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I thought what we would do, and certainly, if there's threshold questions now, they should be a asked, but then we probably ought to go page by page through this and pick up any questions, comments or concerns that the planning commissioners have. Anyone have anything for Mr. Bosi right now before we do that? Anyone think we should proceed in a different fashion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like yours. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 10 of 63 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page by page? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Section by section. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Section by section. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Page by page will go fast unless there are lots of comments. We'll call the pages out like every 20 to 30 pages or something. We'll see what we have and we'll adapt to make it efficient. Okay. I -- let's see. No one is signalling at this point. I'll lead off with a question, and my first question is on page 92 having to do with correctional facilities. And none of my questions should be a surprise to staff, because I met with them, as I always do, on Tuesday, and have gone through these and so in many respects, my objective is to make a public record of, in almost all cases, what I believe are thoughtful responses from staff to the questions and issues that I raise. So the first one was a question, and I was glad to have received the answer and I'll ask it again so that we can make a record of it, has to do with a shortage of beds in the correctional facilities, and it occurred to me, wouldn't it be awful if, as a result of a bed shortage, we found ourselves or the criminal justice system found itself granting more paroles than would reasonably be expected, and I was very relieved to find out that -- at least to the staff's recollection, we have never had a shortage of beds in the correctional facility, so that is only a theoretical concern at this point. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Yes. That is -- that's correct. And the chart on the -- at the last -- the jail section has -- the average daily jail population by fiscal year, and as you can see, it's been on a steady downward trend. The highest being 2012 at 988, and the last reading was 2020 at 628. So -- and just for context, we have around 13 -- 1,304 beds available, so we are well below capacity in terms of what we experienced last year and going back, all the way back to 2010, we've never had an issue where the demand has outpaced the capacity in terms of beds availability. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you've had a very significant drop to the population in the last few years. What do we attribute that to? And the other question is the cost per day has gone up drastically. I assume that's because most of the costs are fixed costs. MR. BOSI: And I'm not working inside the sheriff's office. I'd have a hard time trying to identify why we've had such a decrease within the crime rate other than the efficient and effective job of Sheriff Rambosk and the team provides on a daily basis to this community, but I -- other than -- I can't give a better explanation than we have a lot of people who are following the rules now, I guess. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would compliment him. MR. BOSI: Oh, without a doubt. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Looking it's half the rate 2020 than it was in 2004, that's a major undertaking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're very fortunate to have Sheriff Rambosk. He does a terrific job. Speaking of Sheriff Rambosk, I've heard him speak publicly on a particular subject a number of times and I'm sure many of you have as well, and that subject is mental health in the county, and the sheriff will frequently say that the largest mental health facility in Collier County is the county jail, which is not just a play on words, but it's also a sad fact, I think, and it prompts me to want to ask the question, are we as a county spending enough money on providing resources for the needed health care of inmates. MR. BOSI: That's a question that I'll have to coordinate with the sheriff's department specifically. I think that their response would be they would always probably have a little bit of need in terms of that regard, but they do recognize and they have commented many times that mental health and mental health care is one of the aspects that is provided for within the jail system, and it is something that is continually rising. But I can get a little more specificity on it. We'll get that response back to the CCP soon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Thank you. And as far as how we might go forward with our work and from our work today, it seems to me that 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 11 of 63 we could also be offering forth to the Board County Commissioners recommendations that relate to subject matter and the AUIR, such as, potentially, a recommendation that the BCC assure, to the extent financially feasible, that the mental health needs, resources of the county sheriff are met in full. So just as an example of a kind of a thing that me might want to put in our final resolution, that, I think, would be certainly in order, and I take it you would agree with that, Mr. Bosi -- MR. BOSI: Without -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- with the procedure. MR. BOSI: The Planning Commission is well within their purview to make such a suggestion on any one of the aspects of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I'm just going to go through my comments here, and -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Procedurally, I'm going to move that we table this and that we do the next two items, since we have so many people here waiting and as a courtesy to them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'll ask for a second in a moment. The only thing that I would observe is that there are a number of people who have come in, and I think your point is well taken, but has everybody come in that is going to come in or have people assumed that it's going to be later in the morning? I don't know the answer to that, but having said that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: My whole desire is to facilitate for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. That's a very reasonable thing to ask for. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we table this, I guess, to later in the day and then proceed to our two rezoning conditional use or GMPA conditional use matter. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think it's a very good idea to do that. People are expecting to be here later that aren't here yet and you're taking that opportunity away from them if they're following the agenda. COMMISSIONER FRY: The agenda was formally published, public record. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Always. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would be concerned that moving ahead now might preclude some people from being here when they planned to be here later, so I guess I'd have concerns about that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do, too, but I fully take your point, Commissioner Klucik, that ordinarily, that would be something that we would definitely want to do, but since the agenda's been put out there and people are maybe pacing their own days against when they expect we might hit an agenda item, it's a good thought, but I'm not sure that it would be the best -- Anybody else have a thought on this? Do you want a vote on your motion or would you want -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yes, just because I think the -- I don't think people know how long items take. People don't know whether this would have taken half hour or an hour or ten minutes. MR. EASTMAN: You also have staff that's here for the AUIR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We already did the addendum to the agenda. I don't know why we're doing it in the middle of a meeting like this. It's not appropriate, I don't think. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other commissioners want to weigh in before we vote? If not, all those in favor of the motion to table, please say aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 12 of 63 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It fails, but nonetheless, it was a good thought and we appreciate it. All right. Staff, please continue. MR. BOSI: We're waiting for the next question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. How do you want to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's do -- okay. Commissioner Klucik, you were lit up, sir. Was that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I'm done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Fry is lit up. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was not first, though. I know that I was -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I took it off because I thought we were changing. No, I'm still in, but -- I have just questions that apply to everything. I wanted to understand this voter approved infrastructure sales tax, how that is collected and how it's apportioned, because appears in many of the different groups. For instance on the law enforcement, it's funding the crime building that they're -- forensic building they're talking about. So I'm wondering how it's collected and how it's apportioned among the different departments. MR. BOSI: We have a former member of the OMB team here, Mr. Ed Finn, will be able to address that he request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Finn. MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Mr. Chairman, Edward Finn, currently acting as facilities management director. Sales tax was approved by the voters. The use of those funds was largely determined by that by category. As you point out, there is a substantial amount of funding, $33 million for forensic evidence building for the sheriff. That project is proceeding. The sheriff facilities have received about $12 million out of a total of 139 earmarked for facilities and capital facilities maintenance. That's the nature -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But what I'm wondering is in the regulation that passed the sales tax does it say what percentage of that is collected goes the different departments or is whatever is collected decided by the commissioners how it's going to be each year, because I can see it being different each year. MR. FINN: Yes, sir. When the voters approve that, they approved a specific allocation by broad category, and that's the method that's followed here. So relative to the -- there are several categories. The first one is transportation. And out of the total allocation, the transportation portion is $191 million. The next category, the category you're asking about specifically, which is sheriffs buildings and more specifically, facilities and capital replacements, that totals a $139 million. And the last category is titled community priorities, and that total is $90 million. The total allocation and planned collections at this point is $420 million. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm confusing myself. So is -- the amount of money collection -- collected each year varies depending on what happens in the economy, right? So how do you determine how much goes to transportation; how much goes to jails; how much goes to parks? Is that something that the commissioners vote on or is it predetermined the percentage of what we collect will go to the different departments? I'm just trying to see if there's any freedom with the commissioners to move things around a little bit to where it's more needed in a particular year. MR. FINN: There's some flexibility, but the categories I'm outlining for you is essentially, and there are some additional specifics, that the voters specifically approved, so there's not that much flexibility to move around -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's a surtax commission. MR. FINN: I was going to come around to that, Mr. Chairman. The procedure is as follows: The dollar allocations I'm talking about are generally proved out. At the end of this program, the dollars I'm talking about, 420 million, those dollars are going to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 13 of 63 materialize, so the program is pretty firmed up. The procedure for getting to the program involved the voter approval and the voter approval and the statute requires the creation of a local surtax committee. That surtax committee reviews the request to spend the money and their responsibility is to validate those expenditures as being appropriate to -- relative to Florida Statute and the local ordinance. So that's their responsibility. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it also relative to change and conditions in the county or not? MR. FINN: There is some conditions under which they can weigh in on new projects, but I believe the Board of County Commissioners has to provide direction on that first. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County attorney, did you want to be heard on that, sir? MR. KLATZOW: There was an attachment or an exhibit to the ordinance that the voters voted on. It's project specific, so it's not like transportation gets $110 million; it was project specific such as bridges; project specific such as a mental health facility, a sheriffs building. There were other parts that were a little less specific that would go to, like, roofs, HVAC systems, what have you, so it's not like we're allocating X number of dollars per year. We're doing it on a project-by-project basis. And what staff is doing is they're going to the infrastructure sales tax committee saying these are the -- this is project we'd like to allocate money for now is an approved project, and the committee would review it and make a recommendation one way or the other. So it's more project specific than it is buckets of money. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before I call on Commissioner Fry, if I may, I've got a follow-up to commissioner Shea's question. On page 94 of the packet there's a footnote. Again, this has to do with correctional facilities. And it says, due to budgetary constraints, only the Immokalee jail expansion is being proposed within the ten-year planning window. And I think I know what you mean by that. I think -- I hope it means with respect to anticipated receipts of funds as opposed to we're not -- we didn't get enough money to do all the things that we had planned on doing. Could you comment on that? MR. KLATZOW: I would just note that every year the sheriff comes forward with a budget, and to my knowledge for the present sheriff, the board has never objected to anything. They've pretty much allowed the sheriff's budget to be passed as presented, so if the sheriff wants to put more money into a certain spot, the board has been more than accommodating to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. So I think it's fair to say that even though the Immokalee facility is the only one being proposed at this time, that -- we can assume that's in line with what Sheriff Rambosk wants. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And I would also say that not only, you know, from a fiscal standpoint, but from a need standpoint, we have 1,304 beds available. Last year we had an average of 628. There's not a need. There's not a need for a new facility in addition to any monetary restrictions that may be associated with a new facility. There's not a need. And when you -- if Sheriff Rambosk was here or any of -- Chief Smith or anyone of his organization, they would say they utilize the AUIR for -- for their planning purposes for space needs. How they operate the number of officers within the system, within -- the number of beds within the system are based upon usage and their own internal discussions and their own internal needs in that regard, so the AUIR is valuable for them to identify and coordinate with the county on their space needs and emerging needs in that regard, but how they maintain their staffing levels, how they maintain their other aspects of the organization are separate internal discussions and policies that are contained within the sheriff's office. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm not sure this is for Mr. Finn, so if anyone else has questions for him, maybe they can jump ahead of he me. Nothing? Okay. It's a general question, but actually returns to our discussion of the jail system and Sheriff Rambosk's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 14 of 63 comment that the number one mental health facility is the jail. And we all know the pandemic has spurred a lot, you know, mental challenges for very great segment of the population, probably all of us in many ways. Looking for an overview answer. It seems to me that if the jail is the number one mental health facility, that's a bit late, right? Wouldn't it be better to supersede that and catch mental health issues and treat them prior to somebody committing an offense to go to jail, to then receive free treatment at the jail is a little bit late. Tell us about the county's program to perhaps attack mental health earlier before it becomes the job of the jail system. MR. BOSI: Well, I would speak a little bit out of turn in terms of providing any terms of expertise within that, but what I can say is the county provides to tremendous amount of funding to organizations, such as Dave Lawrence facility. That's a program that tries to intervene before that jail space would be needed. Also, within -- within our structure of our society, there's the nonprofits, the religious organizations, the St. Matthew's House, those facilities that provide social support networks to individuals that are within crisis or within needs of those services. So there's coordination within those institutions in terms of trying to address those individuals and provide for interventions before they get to the jail. So it's a series of not only governmental intervention but nonprofit facilities and institutions and the roles they play within the medical mental health, and the care facilities and the social safety network that's associated and available to any one community. MR. KLATZOW: And Commissioner Solis (phonetic) spearheaded this, and the initiative started about two years ago, and one of the things the county is doing, and I believe this would be infrastructure sales tax, is working in conjunction with David Lawrence building a county mental health facility. That project is underway as we speak. COMMISSIONER FRY: Available for the general public if they need mental health services? MR. KLATZOW: Yes. It will be a county mental health facility. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm glad to hear that, because it sounded like the only county run mental health facility is the jail and the rest were relying on other interventional type, which interventional is, you know, when things get bad, right? So it would be nice if we had a more proactive solution, so thank you for that update. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Just to Commissioner Fry, I guess I would just say that the decrease even during 2020 was -- does factor into the pandemic or a good portion of it, so it appears as though we're improving, so the mental health needs seem to be -- you know, if anecdotally that -- I understand what everyone is saying as far as the jail providing mental health services, but if we're going to go down the route of, you know, looking into that issue, it seems as though the need is decreased substantially, so whatever we're doing as a county or in this area, we have been doing something to make -- you know, make things better. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you speaking in terms of fewer people in jail? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Because that's the anecdote that started the discussion and by that measure, we're certainly -- you know, there's less of a need, because there's fewer inmates. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, less of a chronic need, because it's taken people to the point of where they've committed offenses and gone to jail, but I think -- look at Simone Biles and the Olympic athletes that are coming out that say that mental health is a challenge, it's now -- you know, the stigma is being removed from seeking mental health. It's more of a common need. I think I speak for myself and others, it's a great service that helps people live better lives, and I just wanted to find out if that was on the radar screen for the county, and it sounds like it is, which is great. You think of how many people don't go and seek mental health because counselors are 150, 200, $300 an hour, and that's just not a budget that a lot of people can afford, so I'd like to keep it visible and I hope that it is -- it sounds like it is visible to the county commission that it's a valuable service that we could provide assistance of the county and try to nip it in the bud rather than wait until something requires intervention or going 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 15 of 63 to jail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. I am on the David Lawrence Center board, so you have full disclosure on the comments I'm about to make, but my perception is the David Lawrence Center does a fantastic job; Rambosk does as fantastic job. Rambosk took the lead that really brought this mental health issue to the forefront to come alongside David Lawrence Center, and I think Rambosk -- obviously, I can't speak for him, but I think his point of view is to make sure these people get the mental health services they need and that he wants to work with the experts, primarily David Lawrence Center and some others, in order to get those services delivered, primarily by David Lawrence Center and other organizations like that rather than the sheriff becoming the mental health counselor in the group. So I think he's working very closely with them and I think the sales tax certainly contemplated this. So I think there's really good interaction. And the David Lawrence Center is available to everybody. COMMISSIONER FRY: Even if you're not in crisis. I think that's the question. I think we're *talking about the jail, David Lawrence interventions. It sounds like you're treating people in crisis, but I'm talking about treating people that are before -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, no. I mean, David Lawrence Center is a mental health facility. I mean, it wasn't created by the Sheriff or by the county. It is a mental health facility, not limited to people in crisis. At least that's my understanding. I mean, it is a traditional mental health facility. So it doesn't wait for somebody to get arrested to jump into action. COMMISSIONER FRY: Anyone can walk into the David Lawrence Center and say I need help? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I don't think -- I would assume -- I can't tell you that, because I'm not a mental health expert, what their criteria is. I don't know whether anybody -- I don't know if you can walk in and say I need help because I feel bad today, but yes, I think, generally speaking, the answer is anybody can do that. They don't have to be in the criminal system or anything like that. This is a full service mental health facility, and very robust one for this area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that, certainly, in previous jurisdictions where I've practiced law, that if someone believes that they are a danger to themselves or others, that's before something has happened, that's a pre-occurrence crisis, if you will, that they will receive the care they need, and also, my background as a paramedic officer in the St. Louis Fire Department, I can tell you that most -- I'll step back and say many times that crises or pre-crises like this occur are as a result of patients forgetting or failing, for some other reason, to take their medicines, and they realize it, infrequently, before it's too late. My next question goes to page 99. Does anyone have anything before that page? MR. BOSI: The one thing I would say is the way that the agenda is provided to the Planning Commission is a little different than how it's posted online, so if you could cite the section and then the page, I think it would help at least the individuals from staff here to understand, are you talking about roads; are you talking about jails; are you talking about libraries -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'll try to get more -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there any reason why we shouldn't be putting these exhibits up on the -- as we talk about a certain page, it's got charts, numbers. Should we be showing those up on the screen so that -- to give everyone context? MR. BOSI: Yes, if I can identify the page you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If we have more general questions, should we do that now, because -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it's entirely -- my questions going forward are going to be specific to these sections, so if you have a general question, now would be a good time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Several of these, it gets to the impact fees. There are several of these individual departments that are collecting money; some of them, they're not spending any. What happens to that -- like one of them, I think it was $40 million and nothing planned, no expenditures, or sometimes the impact fees are a lot higher than their actual projected costs? What does that -- what 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 16 of 63 happens to that impact fee money? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's usually employee bonuses, I think, isn't it? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe so. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's why Mike came back, right? MR. KLATZOW: I wouldn't know anything about employee bonuses there. MR. BOSI: Impact fees have to be spent upon the facility that is associated with that impact fee, and it has to be associated with a capital expansion to expand that facility. They're restricted in terms of their utilization so they, basically, stand in abatement until the next wave of improvement has been identified and that's when they're applied. MR. KLATZOW: And if they're not spent within a certain period of time, I think it's around seven years, they have would be returned, but that's not going to happen, because we don't collect enough impact fees in this county, even though we collect a lot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else has been up at this point, so I'm going to propose that we go to page 99 unless someone has something before then, and that page has to do with a balance sheet for correctional facilities. It's a law enforcement facilities, and it looks to me like a balance sheet. And my question is, it's projecting a deficit. So it's guess it's an income and expense statement, too. It's projecting a five-year deficit of $11 million. The conversations we've had to this point have been reassuring to me, but when I see a number like that, it -- 11 million. $11,164,804 in deficit over five years. And that's -- that's a huge number. MR. BOSI: It is. And it's completely associated with this chart (indicating). And what this chart shows are the three facilities that have been requested by law enforcement for Collier County government to provide for, that's the district one substation, district five substation and the forensic science facility. When those stations are constructed -- when those stations are constructed, that deficit will be addressed, but that does show that there is a -- a revenue gap that's needed to be addressed and whether it be the sales tax or whether it be for general purpose, a budgetary line, that that's where that money will be made up. But that's why you're showing a deficit because we are -- we do have facilities, they've been on the books for a couple years that we are going to need these facilities; we just have not pinned down specifically the dates that they are going to move forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I mean, that makes sense. That clarifies it for me. My thought, though, when I look at this income statement -- income and expense statement, it doesn't track with what I'm used to seeing for an organization's financial statements. And I'm not saying you need to change your nomenclature, but maybe a footnote would be in order to explain -- because this jumps out. You see an $11 million deficit in the next five years. An asterisk with exactly your explanation would have saved the time. MR. BOSI: Just for Planning Commission's clarification, this is not an operational budget for the sheriff's department. This is the capital needs of the needs of the sheriff's department that's obligated by us to provide for them, so that deficit is the revenue that we have to identify to provide for the system expansion or the building expansions needed for the sheriff's office. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe calling it not fully funded yet or something that to that effect would be better, because it's really not a deficit. It's -- you know, we passed the surtax; we've got general operating funds that we use to fund important projects like EMS every year, so -- it's just a suggestion. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Let's go -- can I ask a question along that line? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When we get into funds like unfunded needs which show up under revenue as revenue, what does that mean, unfunded -- where is that money coming from when it says unfunded needs? MR. BOSI: Either general purpose tax dollars or the sales tax. That's where the money is going to come from. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 17 of 63 COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the assumption is that that money would be coming from outside of that department or division or whatever. MR. BOSI: The sheriff's department does not -- does not contribute to the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: This isn't on the sheriff. This is a general question. I'm actually looking at the transportation. But I see that on several of these unfunded needs. I'm just looking for a definition of what that means, since it is a source of revenue. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, deputy department head growth management department. You will see that within the transportation and storm water sections, both of those I believe we have unfunded needs. We have, with regard to the transportation, the roads and bridges section, we have -- our gas tax bonds will be expiring soon. We anticipate going back out for that, so that may give us an influx of funding. Also, debt considerations for the board. But we use it as a planning tool to be able to allow the board to have that dialogue that we anticipate that we're going to need additional funding, particularly in those outer years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I have another comment I'd like to make on the same page, and it's a little bit above the $11 million reference, and this has to do with the level of service standard of sheriff's officers, that the -- that the current desired LOSS is 1.84 officers per 1,000 population, and right now, they're not at that. They're not too far below it; they're at 1.77 officers, and so since we're falling below LOSS on that, I thought it would be desirable to have some kind of a comment and, Mr. Bosi, I realize you don't have expertise on the sheriff's budget and the like, but to the extent you can provide to us -- MR. BOSI: But I have had a lot of conversations over the years with them, and they will remind me and remind the Planning Commission that they utilize the AUIR as the barometer in terms of when their new facilities can be expected, but how they operate their systems, the number of officers, that suggests -- that's a benchmark they work towards, but the needs of the system and the needs of the over -- of the overall community is what dictates their staffing level and not the AUIR. They make a clear distinction that the AUIR is more for their capital planning program. The number of officers within the system are dictated by the needs of the system. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's fair to conclude from this and what you just said that Sheriff Rambosk is satisfied with these number of officers per thousand at this time. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to follow up on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If he is not, then that's when they come to the budget process and make a proposal to the board through the annual budget process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. He's no shrinking violet, to be sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, he's not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But our role, of course, is to try to flag these things and raise them for discussion. But you're quite right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As Mike said, the AUIR is nothing more than a -- actually, just a barometer, a planning tool and it's just one indicator. Operationally, it's a different matter. MR. BOSI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. Okay. No one else is signalling at this point, so I'll continue, and I'm going to -- this one's already been answered. Oh. All right. On page 100 -- And I will speed up, vice-chair -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- soon. You needn't worry. In fairness, I will -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I won't hold my breath, but I'll -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I wouldn't want you to hold your breath. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 18 of 63 Most of my comments are going to be on two or three subjects and it's just that this first one happens to be one of them. That's all. This has to do with the sheriff's office training and gun range. And the point is made here in that other entities train at their facility and there's a concern expressed under this section that they're underfunded and I'm just wondering, ask the question, does the sheriff's office charge other law enforcement departments to cover their costs of using the range, if we know. MR. BOSI: That, I do not know. I can, once again, try to effort that from the sheriff's department. And this is an example of how the AUIR stands as a useful tool is this is when they introduce the conversations that they will have at facilities with the Board of County Commissioners of what their capital needs are, and this is how the process starts in terms of the discussion that here's the type of facilities that we need to address to be able to continue the operations that we want to continue. But I am not sure if they charge other outside agencies for utilization of that gun range. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then in the paragraph immediately following that it says, fully functioning CCSO facilities to services that growth areas in the eastern portions of the Estates should be considered in the near five-to-ten-year future, and it goes on to say, a minimum of two facilities will be required to support this short-term need. Well, you know, when I see language like that, and I'm being asked to make recommendations, that certainly suggests that a recommendation should be made that this be addressed, because eastern Collier County is where the growth is happening. And we want to be sure that law enforcement keeps up. MR. BOSI: And I would say -- and I would suggest that the planning commissioner remember that comment related to the AUIR as you hear the new villages and towns that are being proposed to you, those provide the greatest opportunity, because the sheriff's department, the EMS, the fire department, all government facilities are at the table when those petitions come around asking the petitioner if they can make room available for their services. So that's something that the AUIR can inform discussions of future projects that are going to be before the Planning Commission. MR. KLATZOW: And keep in mind, we fund the sheriff pursuant to his request, but it's his budget. The sheriff completely controls what he's doing. Then once a year he comes to the Board of County Commissioners, okay, this is what I need; the board says thank you, you've gone a great job, approves the budget, but the sheriff is entirely in control of his own budget. All we do is write the check once a year. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a point well taken, and that will enable me to step back a little bit from some of the minute level of comments I have. In other words, to paraphrase, Sheriff Rambosk is asking for what he needs and he gets what he asks for, but there's just some sections in here that seem to be in conflict with that conclusion, but I will -- I will accept the premise, the overall premise that he's asking what he needs -- asking for what he needs and he's getting it, and perhaps the AUIR, maybe next year's AUIR needs to be cast in a slightly different light so that it doesn't point out potential problems that really aren't problems. MR. BOSI: I think the purpose of pointing these out are these are emerging needs and he wants to start the discussion with the Board of County Commissioners, with facilities with Collier County government, here's the things that we're seeing that's coming up in the future and we need to start to plan for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to interject a basic question for our county attorney. So this is my third time reviewing the AUIR, and as you said, you had department heads in the past come up and present each section. In both cases we more or less sent it on with a rubber stamp. We asked questions, clarifications. Jeff, am I missing something? Is there an additional role that we are to be playing here? Are you expecting us -- because we really aren't in a position to say these numbers are wrong or you need to add a facility for this or that. Just clarify exactly what our role is here. Are we just rubber stamping this or are we literally adding value to the process? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 19 of 63 MR. KLATZOW: You should be rubber stamping it. You're the local planning agency. I remember Mark Strain (phonetic) used to go through this in meticulous detail. You should question staff members. For example, if you think an area of the county road system needs more attention, you should be directing staff towards that. If you believe that there's a crying need for an EMS station in parts of the county, you should be building a staff on that. So no, it's a planning tool, but at the end of the day, the planning tools are there to address the county's needs, and your primary job is to help the board figure our what the county needs are. COMMISSIONER SHEA: My only comment to that is we get a massive, massive, massive amount of data a week before this meeting. There's no way in hell we can -- the only thing we can pick up are things that we hear routinely in the meetings that we're worried about like transportation on Immokalee, mental health and things like that. There's no way we could go through this data and ask anything more than informational type questions. MR. KLATZOW: Then you should be getting the data much earlier than you're getting it prior to the meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we all would like to have that. MR. KLATZOW: Direct staff for next year, we don't want to see it just before the meeting; we want to see it 30 days before the meeting so we have extra time to look at it. MR. BOSI: And I will point out that it was available for on the October 7th hearing date, which is two -- obviously, two weeks ago. So it was available to -- but I will make sure that it's one month -- you want a month before? And we'll coordinate; we'll backtrack and move back staff's activities in coordination with the county management organization so we can ensure that you have 30 days. And the other thing that I would say is not only the individual recommendations from the Planning Commission, the board that has value, but this is also to give you an understanding of the petitions that you're going to be hearing over the next course of the year that we do have plans and expectations in facilities that are on board to be able to handle the demands, that -- the questions that you're going to be asked to provide recommendations to the board in terms of new communities, new commercial ventures, and those type of things, just so you understand, this helps fill in the gap, and this helps give you understanding and it sets your concurrency management system moving forward for the next year. MR. KLATZOW: As far as the timing goes, we don't have to do this. As Mike said earlier, we're the only county that does this. This is first and foremost a planning tool, what are the county's needs, then it's a budgetary tool, how are we going to pay for it, but it's just a tool. So you could be looking at this year round if you wanted to. We just have been in the practice of customarily doing this once a year and this is the time. MR. BOSI: And I would say one of the other things that you hear on a regular basis is when we have a petition before us, the chairman will almost always look to, I think it's Exhibit F of the transportation section and question road segment capacities and will press our transportation department, so in that regard, I think this planning -- the AUIR, specifically in that purpose, really does inform and provide the basis for a lot of questioning that goes on on each individual petition that comes before the CCP. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think we'll get to those questions. I think we have them. MR. EASTMAN: It's a quality control filter, I think, that this board serves. It's also an educational purpose, because it allows the board members to know this project, this road will be improved; therefore, this upcoming application, you don't need to worry about traffic, so and on so forth. I think it's worthwhile to do. And also, the general public learns to understand how we budget through the public services through this process. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to frame my question, really, you mentioned we're the only jurisdiction that does this. It's obvious the phenomenal amount of work that's gone into this looking at every aspect of our growth and how to address it, so from that respect, I think it's -- you know, it's great -- I think that's a great point, Tom, for educational purposes, very valuable for us and the public to understand the level of planning that's done by the county and I've been very impressed by that to the point where I'm not sure that I have a lot, you know -- we need a minutia type input to address it, but 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 20 of 63 the points are well taken, Mr. Klatzow, in terms of looking for areas of need and if we have additional time in the future to review it, I think it gives us more of a chance for a deep dive and to be able to look for those areas where we see a deficit that maybe is not addressed in here, so thanks for the info. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karl, just for edification or education, I'll go back almost 20 years. This was a very, very painful process, because we were -- it was shortly there -- the following two or three years as we implemented checkbook concurrency and many other concurrency issues, it was very painful, because it was a process, a lot of analysis and effort to bring this tool to where it is today. Today it's almost -- almost mechanical in nature, it really is, because all of these templates are built, all of them are in place and the budget process follows the AUIR in some respects based on directions either from the constitutionals that control their own budget and, of course, our staff as they propose to the board. But today's AUIR is pretty solid. But the history of it was fairly painful and I think Karen and folks like Stan Chrzanowski, I think Stan if you're listening, he's probably rolling over right now, and others that were involved in this process was -- but now it's -- it's pretty standard. But it is a tool, and I agree. I mean, we can -- we can talk about this every week if we wanted and bring it up. It is our tool. It's our tool to advise the board, because we present this to the board, and tell them that we have faith and trust in the analysis of the staff and that they -- we, as the local planning authority, agree with the analysis and the levels of service, which is our job. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I agree with pretty much everything that's been said. And I think it's phenomenal we do this, because I love being proactive and we're looking at five years in the future. But to Paul's point, we get this enormous amount of information, and even if we got this enormous amount of information two months in advance, it's still an enormous amount of information. So I'm wondering just to follow up with what I think Paul's suggesting for next year is maybe can we compartmentalize it and take it in chunks over, say, a three-month period instead of trying to do it all at once? Because what I'd like to get to, what I'm hearing is we're either overanalyzing it or under analyzing. We don't want to be a rubber stamp. I think Tom said it, you know, we want to be quality control over the great work you guys are doing. So it seems like if we could maybe chunk it down and just take the -- a quarter to do it over a series of six meetings, or three meetings where it's a half hour discussion and then we approve it at the end of that two-or-three-month period, that we get there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would not support that. I understand your position. The problem is, this is very staff intensive, and it is a dedicated period of time where the staff puts this together. It's available on the website; is it not? I mean, it's available. I hate to throw that as the excuse, but it is available any time for us to ask for this data. MR. BOSI: I would -- it is available after it's been reviewed by the county manager's organization, but I would say the way to -- my perspective is -- because we do this annually, and we've gotten a pretty routine process for how it's prepared and how it's presented and reviewed. I would say that where your focus should be in terms of the lens that you look at the AUIR is compare it to last year; compare it to the year before, and if there's discrepancies between the course of what we're proposing from a capital project, those are the questions that you have. But when you see a consistent approach towards how we address deficiencies, how would we plan -- the forensic building, for example. It was in year five in 2019. It was in year four in 2020, but 2021, it went back to year five. Why is that? That's the question that would be the most pertinent, not -- because the -- these don't shift often. The capital planning doesn't -- the needs arise on a slow basis and the projects are is identified and they work their way through year five, year four, year three. Once they get to year two and one, that becomes much more where you can count on that dependability of those construction, so when you see departures from one year of a project or facilities, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 21 of 63 those are where the questions really should be focused upon. The other aspect of the AUIR is to give you the assurance that these programs are moving forward as they should through the years and we've identified the financing to be able to bring them to fruition. So when you look at it, it's really that comparison that provides, I think, opportunities for where you can have those deeper questions and specific questions in terms of anomalies. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is the first year of the AUIR typically end up being the budget? In other words, the 2020 AUIR numbers, will that be close to the budgets that are proposed or is this just -- MR. BOSI: This -- the way it works, we complete the AUIR in the fall. The board hears it in November and that sets the stage for the preliminary discussions headed into the next -- the following year for the budget that they're ultimately going to adopt here in June and then adopt in September and then the next is the AUIR comes out and we identify new emerging facilities and that informs the budget process heading into the next year. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the next year budget process does mimic the first year in the AUIR. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And each department is involved in the development of this AUIR? They have visibility of the numbers as they're developed; they're part of the process, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. The only portion of the AUIR that the planning staff completes is the law enforcement jails; we do that and then we send it over to the sheriff's office, they review, make comments, provide us their narratives that they want in it, but every other component is -- libraries develops their own AUIR section, parks develops their own AUIR section, storm water, transportation, it's all developed in-house by their team of professionals. They provide it to us; we coordinate it in the book; we speak to the overview, but if we need any specifics, we'll bring them up so they can give you the expertise that they have within their individual area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon, did you have anything further, sir? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. I've done one of these and Joe's done 20, so listen very carefully to what he says. I'm not going to bring a knife to a gun fight. But I do -- I take into account what he said. Possibly -- let me throw this out for next year. If we had a presentation that was a little bit more in-depth than what we had today, which I love the overview; I love the conciseness, but maybe a little bit more in-depth, and then had questions, and then at the next meeting, we vote on it. So maybe a two-meeting process or even a three-meeting process as opposed to just all at once. Just because it is a lot to digest, and that, sort of, is maybe a compromise based on what Joe said. So I don't know how everybody feels. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If we're responsible to look and be kind of the quality assurance part of it, I would like to have more time and I would like to have the department heads here so that you don't get put on the spot all the time for their plans. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It used to be that way and Mark Strain would make this into a multiple meeting process where we would go into excruciating detail, and as a result of having at least one, if memory serves, I've done five of these now, at least one of them was the multiday process, and I learned an enormous amount, and each year I think I learn a little more and can streamline my comments a little better, at least that's what I personally found. What I'd like to do at this point, no one is signalling. It's 10:25. I'd like to take our midmorning break at this point until 10:35. When we come back, my next comments are going to have to do with EMS. Thank you. We're at recess until 10:35. (Whereupon, a recess commenced.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. And Planning Commission, my next comments are going to relate to the next subject, at least the next subject that is of concern to me, which is EMS, but before we get there, I'll ask other members of the Planning Commission -- I actually go to 123. Does anybody have anything before page 123 that needs attention? Okay. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 22 of 63 No one is signalling at this point, and the chair is proud to recognize Chief Butcher, our esteemed EMS chief with whom I have worked closely on the emergency medical authorities for a number of years. And I am glad to be able to reassure or sway the concerns of the vice-chair that I think I'm going to get an answer from Chief Butcher that will enable me to cut right to the chase and not have to grill down too deeply and take up a lot of time. Welcome, Chief. CHIEF BUTCHER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you want to make any introductory comments or just answer questions? CHIEF BUTCHER: I'll be happy -- for the record, Tabatha Butcher, Chief of Collier County EMS. Thank you for having me here. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have and add some comments at the end depending on what those questions are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair enough. Generally speaking, my concern runs along the lines of the concerns I expressed when we were talking about law enforcement, the sheriff's office. The sheriffs, of course, is a constitutional officer and as it was pointed out by the county attorney, his track record of getting what he asks for is near perfect, if not perfect so really, we don't need to worry or be so concerned about his budget, because he's the expert, he's getting what I needs. Now, EMS, of course, is not a constitutional officer, but I know that Chief Butcher would let us know if she was concerned that her department was being shortchanged or that it should be elevated to Category A, which is something that we talked about some years ago, and back then the chief cautioned me that that didn't appear to her to be necessary, so I backed off of it. And the 20 so or questions I have, I can set aside if the chief can reassure the Planning Commission that you're getting all the money you need to do what you believe you need to do. CHIEF BUTCHER: Yeah, absolutely. I can't speak enough about the support from the county manager's agency, as well as the county commissioner. When we have a need and we bring it forward, we are provided the funds that we need to -- for whatever needs that we're asking for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Well, that's what I wanted to hear. It's -- sometimes the report that is submitted to us, as was in the case of the sheriffs office, seems to signal more problems than there really are, and in the future, it might be helpful to explain some concerns. And I'm not just pointing out EMS, but in other cases all well, where we see verbiage about deficits, and problems and shortages, that there be some language supplied in there that enables us to be relaxed about it and be reassured that the departments are getting what they need. Just a suggestion. Okay. My -- I mean, your showing a five-year deficit of five-million-seven, and my past experience in emergency medical matters here, I know that a policy decision has been made by the county, since impact fees and service fees are never going to be sufficient to pay the full operating budget, that each year funds are taken out of the operating budget to make ends meet for EMS, and that's just a policy decision that has been made by the Board of County Commissioners and that's -- naturally, I support that. We don't want a reduction in level of service, at least that's my personal opinion, and I would want to be warned by EMS, as I would by any department if that were on the horizon. I don't think that's an acceptable result to achieve if it could be -- it if we could avoid reducing our level of service by increasing our revenue somehow. So I hope that we would be hearing that. Now, getting a couple of specific questions I have. And first of all, the leased facilities and our inability to capture impact fees, I guess, from leased facilities, would you say a word or two about that, chief? CHIEF BUTCHER: Yes. So as you may be aware, and I know you're aware, some of the facilities that we house ambulances in, we lease those facilities from the fire departments, so instead of building stations, we just co-locate with fire agencies. We're not able to utilize that for impact fees, but a couple of years ago we recognized that, that it had a little bit of an impact on the impact fees that we collect, so since then we have been trying to own 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 23 of 63 stations or do long-term leases so that we can utilize those to collect more impact fees. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So if it's a long-term lease you can capitalize it? That's what -- in the business world, you capitalize it and depreciate it rather than look at it as a short-term expense. CHIEF BUTCHER: I know Amy Patterson is here and she may be able to speak on it that more, but one of the conversations that we had and -- I believe it's longer than a 30-year lease that we can capitalize on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one question. Chief, year after year after year I always see Desoto station, Fiddler's Creek station as proposed, and I say know it depends on the operational issues and response times and where the current ambulance services are located. What's the status of those two stations specifically? CHIEF BUTCHER: Sure. So we have four stations that we're currently working on. Desoto station, we're in the design phase of that. We are almost about to wrap up that design phase and then at that point, our target date is October 24th to wrap that up. We do have a meeting tomorrow to try to finalize some of that, but we will be bringing that project forward to put out for construction, so we hope by the end of next year, that station will be completed. Fiddler's Creek is actually our fourth station down the line. And in between that we have Old 41 and Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So those are -- meet the requirements for now. CHIEF BUTCHER: They meet the requirements for now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm concerned. Desoto is one area of significant growth in the county, of course, the others is Fiddler's Creek, and significant growth going out the trail, but for right now, it's not an issue at least at Fiddler's Creek, but Desoto, you just answered the question. Thanks. CHIEF BUTCHER: Yes. And that particular station in Desoto, not only for the growth, but that's what greater need for us just simply because station 71, which is located at Golden Gate Boulevard and 13th Street, they service that area out off of South Desoto and South Everglades, so right now just simply distance is an issue for us; however, a few years back we put up a quick response paramedic to service that area when that ambulance goes out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Chief, how are the response times running these days in view of the fire suppression arrival time with ALS units? Are we doing as well we were doing several years ago, better? CHIEF BUTCHER: We're consistent what we've been meeting over the last five years. Overall county wide, we have a 91 percent response time eight minutes or less. Our benchmark is 90 percent. So that's something that we just have to continually look at, continue to follow. We just make adjustments operationally on how we move units around for zone coverage to address those needs, so it's something that we continually look at. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. The hospital off-load times, how are we doing on that? CHIEF BUTCHER: We're actually doing very well. We have implemented a lot of different triage mechanisms with the ER staff that have helped us and we have weekly calls with them just to check the status. We have a status board with the hospital. So we've done a lot of internal operational things to make sure that we're meeting those offloads times in an appropriate manner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're getting cooperation from the hospitals? CHIEF BUTCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Restocking supplies. Have the supply chain shortages that seem to be tied to the pandemic, have they affected us. CHIEF BUTCHER: Not so far. When the pandemic initially hit, of course, we had some personal protective equipment supply chain shortages, but we quickly resolved that. We worked closely, myself and the fire chiefs within the Collier County, we worked to make sure we knew what everyone's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 24 of 63 numbers were so that if we had to help each other out, we would be able to do that, and we were able to help them a few times. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think my last question or observation has to do with Alligator Alley and medic -- or Rescue 63. Would you say a word about that station? I know Greater Naples runs that and then we -- do we have a unit? Is Rescue 63, is that part of ours or part of Greater Naples? CHIEF BUTCHER: So currently, that station, we receive funding from Florida Department of Transportation for that station. It is a rescue unit that is fire apparatus that has the capability to place the patient in the inside, if needed. It is not a transport vehicle. It is staffed with one Collier County EMS paramedic/firefighter and two to three Greater Naples firefighters. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we're still getting state funds to provide fire and EMS on I-75? CHIEF BUTCHER: For the time being, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: For the time being. All right. That's good. Are those funds adequate? CHIEF BUTCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I think those are all the questions I had. I had lots more, but I was able to set them aside. Anybody else have questions for Chief Butcher? If not, thank you, ma'am. CHIEF BUTCHER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm ready to talk about traffic and transportation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you want to do a couple little ones before? CHAIRMAN FRYER: By all means. Yeah. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I think Mike can answer that. On the beach re-nourishment, there's a couple of $35 million projects. Are these just placeholders for what we see in the climate resiliency work that's going on or are there specific projects? MR. BOSI: These would -- those set asides are for -- really focused upon beach re-nourishments. Resiliency is a little bit further down the road in terms of identification, in terms of formally from a item that you're going to be hearing, and it was scheduled for the 18th, going to be pushed off to the 2nd of December, related to resiliency, related to coastal flooding issues, those are still in the process of -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So there's no money in this -- what are the 35 -- in 2025 and 2029 there's 35 million. MR. BOSI: Those are -- that's, traditionally, about a four-or-five-year window is when the beaches will need re-nourishments and I don't have the specificity in terms of which beach segments they are, but that's normally when we have the sand haul and the replenishment of the beaches. COMMISSIONER SHEA: One more and another one just before we get into -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: On the storm water, just trying to understand. It shows a five-year deficit. It's 233, is the page in the packet. That's a scary big number, so what's the significance of that big red number that we should be looking at? MR. BOSI: It shows that we have a -- have identified a greater need for storm water projects than funding that's currently available. I mean, that's the long and short of it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What normally happens with that when you see a flag like that especially in storm water management? MR. McLEANN: I can cover that one for you. Matt McLean. Traffic normally covers that particular division. Again, we're looking at this as a planning tool overall and as we project out the five years, we definitely have more projects available than the current funding. One of the mechanisms names that the Board County Commissioners supported for us to get back online I started to take advantage of some capital storm water projects is the $60 million bond we 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 25 of 63 currently have, which is also incorporated in this under the debt funding. You can see that portion in there. So as we continue work over the next couple of years, we look to continue to spend down that initial 60 million, we're going to continue to focus knowing that we have more projects in front of us for additional funding opportunities, so that's, essentially, our outlook that we know that we have a lot more work to do in storm water, continue to improve the overall network in the system, and currently, the way that we're doing that right now is through the first $60 million bond exercise, but just recognizing that in the future we'll continue to have challenges for funding and we work on that as we go. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else before we go to traffic and transportation? If not, the chair recognizes Ms. Scott. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Mr. Fry is really failing me today with my entrance music. COMMISSIONER FRY: New phone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to say a few introductory words, Ms. Scott? MS. SCOTT: I have nothing. I think last year I went through -- I think staff was ready to send me out the door. I think last year I did over an hour presentation really going column by column so I was just, for today, open it up to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, you're first up. COMMISSIONER FRY: We'll start it off with a high level general question, Trinity. There's a chart on page 215 in our packet that basically shows the -- all the segments, how many increased by a certain percentage, versus were relatively stable, versus decreased. There were more segments that decreased than increased, which I thought was interesting. I just wondered how you -- looking at the statistics, about 37 or a little over a third stayed the same. Over 40 percent went down and then only about 20 -- low 20 percent went up. So how would you explain that in a county that's growing? MS. SCOTT: COVID pandemic. COMMISSIONER FRY: Strictly that? Okay. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. Last year our traffic count numbers were significantly lower. Lots of people were working from home. Lots of people weren't working, so certainly, that impacted our traffic numbers. COMMISSIONER FRY: So these are an anomaly. Ordinarily, there are a lot more segments that are gaining traffic than losing traffic in an average year? MS. SCOTT: Typically. We look at -- when we're doing our projections, we're looking at a minimum of a two percent increase when we're looking at our projections or historical growth factors, whichever is higher. So we are looking at this, but yes, absolutely, this year we did have some that went down just based on people not traveling as much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I made the same observation. 86 of 142 segments are showing less volume. And I'm not sure that this is entirely, when it -- when the pandemic has gone, this will entirely reverse itself because I think, as a working society, we've learned some things about, like, telecommuting and being able to accomplish productive work without being on the roads to get to an office, so I'm hopeful that that will redound to the benefit of the county going forward. Obviously there are always going to be increases, but I'm hoping they won't be as steep as they might otherwise have been. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Trinity, I'd like to thank you and all of the transportation staff for Phase 1 of the Veterans Memorial Boulevard extension that will go out to the school district's new high school site, and I'd also like to get more details on Phase 2 of the timing for that. Phase 1 really couldn't have gone better up to this point. The county provided the school district with a temporary construction access that was beyond our dreams, and everything with that project is moving according to schedule, and certainly, as a essential component to us opening the high school successfully, but as we're all aware, there's going to be the Phase 2 and if you could speak to the timing 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 26 of 63 of that, please. MS. SCOTT: Sure, as shown in Attachment D, and I don't have the same page numbers that you do, but it's Attachment D in the transportation section, we're anticipating Phase 2 of the Veterans Memorial to begin in fiscal year '24. That will go all the way to U.S. 41. In our initial, when we first started talking about Phase 2 of veterans memorial a few years back, we were only going to take it to Old 41; however, through some involvement with the community as well as the Florida Department of Transportation -- coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation who's working on the Old 41 corridor, we will be taking that project all the way to U.S. 41. MR. EASTMAN: When would you imagine that it would be complete? MS. SCOTT: It's probably going to be about a 24-month process, so beginning in fiscal year '24, so complete fiscal year '26, give or take. We are currently working on the permitting and pond siting report for that project to try to get a head start on it. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you so much. MS. SCOTT: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signalling. I really don't have a lot of questions, simply because I've finally awakened to the fact that thanks to the folks in Tallahassee, there's not a heck of a lot we can do, except complain, perhaps. Sometimes that's useful, sometimes not. But I will ask for a little more of explanation, please, directed to the -- I count six of 142 segments of below level service standard, and I understand that Attachment G supplies a brief explanation of status, but what I would like to have is a little more back -- or a little more material that describes what the status of the funding is for the improvements, the estimated time of completion and what percentage of the work, if any, has been completed. And we can -- we can go through these by segment, but I'm sure Ms. Scott, you know these better than I do. MS. SCOTT: Well, it varies by segment, but let me just -- I'll start with Old 41. Old 41 is currently -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Give us a segment number. MS. SCOTT: Hold on. 62. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 62. Okay. MS. SCOTT: Old 41 from the Lee County line to U.S. 41 is currently in a project development and environmental phase that is being conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation. They're also conducting the same study in the City of Bonita Springs. They're taking it from the Collier County line to Bonita Beach Road, because certainly, that roadway, when we're going to widen that, makes sense to widen it all the way to Bonita Beach Road. So we're doing that in coordination with them. They anticipate going to public hearing. That's a very regimented federal process that must go forward. They're anticipating a public hearing next year, in the latter part of next year. And then we are working through the metropolitan planning organization process to identify funding for design and construction. This roadway is within a transportation concurrency management area and as we have discussed many times in front of this commission, we look at the transportation concurrency management area as a whole, and as long as 85 percent of the lane miles within that area are operating at an acceptable level of service then we will continue to allow and be recommending development to move forward. Not saying that we're ignoring these segments; we're workings on these segments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think numerically, the first one, and it's hard for me to look at. Is that 36.1 or 36.2? The segment of Collier Boulevard that is -- MS. SCOTT: So 36.2 is Collier Boulevard from the Wal-Mart driveway to Manatee Road. That is a state roadway, so that is actually State Road 951. Florida Department of Transportation has, right away, funded in the current fiscal year, which is fiscal year 2021, and they have construction to widen that segment to six lanes in fiscal year 2024. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then is it 66.0? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 27 of 63 MS. SCOTT: Yes. Pine Ridge Road from Shirley Street to Airport Road. That segment is -- currently, does in the have any widening noted. That's already a six-lane facility. However, this is a segment that transportation planning will be undertaking an operational analysis similar to what we have done on other segments of Pine Ridge Road and Immokalee Road to identify if there are opportunities to implement innovative intersections that can increase the capacity for the roadway; however, I will also note this is within a transportation concurrency management area, so as long as the overall area is operating sufficiently, we can proceed forward with a level of service failure. I will also note that we will have Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension coming on board, which is a parallel facility that will go from eastern Collier County to U.S. 41, and we certainly believe that there will some diversion of traffic from not only Immokalee Road, but also, Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER FRY: When you say innovative intersections the only intersection involved in that segment is at Airport and Pine Ridge, correct? Shirley is a minor intersection. MS. SCOTT: We were also looking at Goodlette, but certainly with Shirley Street we can look at if there are ways to do innovative intersections, such as a continuous flow intersection. We also, as part of some of our studies, we've also been looking at interconnection opportunities and there may be interconnection opportunities particularly through the industrial park in the northern part of Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's where my business is located. That's an intriguing idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe we can light up that intersection a little better then. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is a continuous flow intersection? Clarify that? MS. SCOTT: A continuous flow intersection is one that instead of making a left-hand turn at the intersection itself, you actually make that left-hand turn before you get to the main intersection and you go on the opposite side of the through traffic that would be coming at you. They are used all over the world and all over the United States. We're actually going to be building our first one at Pine Ridge Road and Livingston. But what it does allow you to do is it allows the left-hand turns to go at the same time as the through movement, where right now, typically, when you're at an intersection, the lefts go, typically, with the through movement that's going in the same direction, and then the lefts stop so the other oncoming traffic can proceed. So it allows us to give more green time to the through traffic and we're not taking it away for the left-hand turns. COMMISSIONER FRY: And are you suggesting that as a possibility for the Shirley Street intersection or just the Airport and Pine Ridge? MS. SCOTT: No. What I'm saying is that those are the type of things that we analyze and we look at when we get into operational analysis for the entire corridor. COMMISSIONER FRY: Am I correct in assuming that would only be utilized in a major intersection. MS. SCOTT: No. That's not necessarily the case. We would evaluate them. We go through what's called an intersection control evaluation process. It's a very data driven process to look at levels of service and through put at intersections when we do these corridor analysis, so we look at the smaller intersections and look at are there other ways that we can accomplish the movement of traffic. Sometimes a conventional intersection is what works best and it may just mean increasing turning lanes and so forth but it is an evaluation process that we go through. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Conceptually, can we talk about Immokalee Road? And I'd like to talk about it in two different concepts. First is the study from Livingston to Logan, and then the eastern part that we hear so much about on almost every eastern Collier application that comes in here. I know it's all buried in here, but conceptually, I'd like to understand it better. So let's go to the easy one. What's going on with Logan to Livingston. Is there any money in this AUIR for any of those seven or so intersections that we're talking about improvements on? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 28 of 63 MS. SCOTT: So we just took the study to the board at the last board meeting and the board accepted it. So we did a corridor congestion study for Immokalee Road from Logan to Livingston Road. They identified short-term improvements, one of which is an adaptive traffic signal, so a retiming of the traffic signals, which are actually going to start next month. So that will give us some initial relief out there as far as being able to platoon the vehicles more efficiently. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that something that happens at all the intersections or just one of them? MS. SCOTT: No. It's for the entire corridor. So from a timing perspective, we look at the interstate, because that's our major aspect from timing and then we work out -- work away from the interstate for our timing exercise for that specific project. Another item that we identified as a shorter term improvement was to take the westbound right turn lane from Logan through to Livingston and restripe that as a through right turn lane so that in the a.m., we would get some additional capacity through that. Now, that is not -- all segments of that are not easy to implement; however, there is one segment from approximately Northbrook Drive over to the interstate where we feel there would be a lot of value in the a.m. peak particularly as far as getting folks to the interstate and getting them on the interstate in the morning and trying to relieve some of that congestion at the interchange area. The board direction was to incorporate that in our upcoming budget process, so that is not specifically identify in here. The project that is specifically identified is the design phase for Immokalee Road at Livingston, which is going to be a future grade separated overpass. So we have design in fiscal year '26. And this planning tool that we use for the annual update inventory report fits right into the metropolitan planning organization's long range transportation plan so in their 26 through twenty thirty block, I have also identified construction funding for the actual overpass as Livingston Road, as well as the improvements for the interchange area, which will include Juliet over to Northbrook as well, because FDOT will look at those intersection improvements with the interchange improvements. So design for the major beginning in this five-year construction in the 26 through 30. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So did you say the design, also, is starting on the -- on diverging diamond at 75, too? MS. SCOTT: That will be dependent upon the Florida Department of Transportation, but we are working with them through the MPO process. It has been a priority of ours for upwards of ten years for them to start looking at that. They have an ongoing study looking at I-75, and I think that they have finally come to the realization that Collier County staff was not being Henny Penny; that we really wanted them to start looking at it ten years, but I think they're on board with looking at it now. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Does anybody have any questions on that part of Immokalee? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just wondering if there's an exhibit that shows the future vision of that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, there is. There's actually a moving video. It's very well done. It's on the transportation web page. MS. SCOTT: Yes. Capital project planning website and the transportation planning folder, there's a studies folder and there is a drop down that has exactly what Commissioner Shea speaks of. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's Immokalee Road study. It's very good. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's not just the interchange; it's the actually the intersections along that segment of Immokalee? MS. SCOTT: Livingston to Logan. COMMISSIONER SHEA: All of them. Each one and what they are going to do in -- proposing at each one. It's very good. On the eastern side, we constantly -- I mean, I see a lot of the sections that are in trouble right now, and what happens is there's all there's always -- this is me talking. I don't know how everybody else feels, but there's projects going everywhere -- on everywhere and I don't seem to get a clear feeling of what is going on that is going to take and change the rating of the sections on Immokalee out towards Wilson and beyond that area that are in trouble now or will be shortly. So I just wanted a conceptual -- I don't need to get into the details other than you've got this project that should relief this and that project that 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 29 of 63 will relieve that, and -- because I see some of the deficiencies clearing out there, but not for a while. MS. SCOTT: So -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm assuming is that expected deficiency last year is after whatever improvements we're making -- we expect them -- the level of service then to go back to an acceptable level; is that what that column means, expected deficiency last year? MS. SCOTT: Let me -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: 224 is what -- MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Which column? COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's the last one on the right before the comments and the solutions. MS. SCOTT: So the expected deficient last year is during last annual update inventory report, what we had reported to you and the year expected deficiency is this year's analysis, so that gives you kind of that back looking and what has changed between last year and this year. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What would be interesting if you had a column which was -- maybe it was wishful thinking on my part, if you had a column that said year the expected deficiency would be gone. That's what I thought that meant. MS. SCOTT: So the year the expected deficiency would be gone is subject to having an improvement identified in place and having that implemented and open to traffic. Remember that these are projections. This is not that that road's going to break that year specifically. It's based on projections of how we anticipate we may grow in the future. If growth slows down, if, as Commissioner Fryer talked about, during the pandemic, lots of folks realized that they could figure out how to telecommute more efficiently. In fact, a lot of my engineering firms I work with aren't even going back to the office at all. I keep asking them when are you going coming back. They're not even planning on coming back to the office. They're planning on working from home in perpetuity at this point. So depending on how things change over the future, that's when we're going to know, it will be identified in the Attachment D that we have an improvement that's identified and this is the schedule for that project. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So we have a couple of sections there that are deficient this year and next year. MS. SCOTT: So let me address your Immokalee Road from, say, Collier Boulevard, even Logan Boulevard on out. I'm sorry. Immokalee Road from Logan Boulevard out to, say, Wilson or Randall. We are getting ready to let probably the largest construction project we've ever done which is Vanderbilt Beach Road construction. That project is going to go out to bid hopefully in the next month or two. We're going to open those bids and I'm hoping that the board awards it next year, early next year. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Reminder to everyone, please mute your phones. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Phase 1 will go out to 16th Street. Phase 2, which is also identified in the five-year program -- I'm just verifying the year. Anticipated to go to constructions in fiscal year '24. That will take it to Everglades Boulevard. That is getting right into the heart of where the traffic is being generated from in Golden Gate Estates, so in our initial model runs that we've done, and they're model runs, I understand that, we're anticipating upwards of over 20 percent decrease in traffic on Immokalee Road because there will be a diversion, and that's going to divert not only to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension we're also doing improvements to Pine Ridge Road, so all of these east/west corridors, we anticipate that there will be some diversion particular off of Immokalee Road towards the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension corridor. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Quick question on the interchange I-75 and Collier Boulevard. It says design Phase 2021. What's the reality as far as -- we've done our part as far as the intersection 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 30 of 63 improvements. What's the reality on the actual state -- MS. SCOTT: So I-75 at Collier Boulevard is a late breaker and actually the information in here is not the most current. They just announced, probably in the last 30 days, that based on the COVID-19 economic recovery funds, that the Florida Department of Transportation anticipates advancing that design built project into the current fiscal year. In fact, at the last metropolitan planning organization board meeting, we approved the transportation improvement program amendment to do so. The Florida Department of Transportation right now is currently working to finalize all the necessary paperwork for them to be able to get that project out on the street in the spring of next year. So we will have construction commencing probably within the next 12 months or so. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wow. That's pretty significant. MS. SCOTT: It is. And that's approximately $100 million project as well. We have quite a few construction projects that will be led over the next six to nine months. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: See, that's good planning. Have it all ready to go. That's how you get the money. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You said 20 percent reduction on Immokalee Road you expect on the Vanderbilt Beach Extension? What does that do to the level of service? Does it move from troubled back to something -- something more acceptable? MS. SCOTT: I anticipate that it will come back down, but that was also why we went through and did the operational analysis that we did. Understanding that some of those improvements, the Logan to Livingston Road, is that we understand that we're going to get a dip and traffic is going to, you know, find a more efficient way, but we also understand that there's growth in eastern part of Collier County and we can't just sit on our hands, so that is why we implemented the study so that now we can look at these alternative intersections that will then increase the capacity of the road. So now I'm reducing the volume on it, but we understand that growth is still going to occur; people are still going to want to utilize that road, so we will then be implementing over that, as I said, the six to ten year, those major improvements for the interchange area, as well as Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you think that the -- I'm just paraphrasing -- that the work that we do between Logan and Livingston will also have an impact on relieving the load on the eastern Immokalee overloaded sections? MS. SCOTT: We will in the interim with the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. We do have other plans for Logan Boulevard, which are identified in the long range transportation plan, but they are a little further out, as well as future overpass at 41 and Collier Boulevard -- I'm sorry. Future overpass at Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard where, as you sitting as the Planning Commission have heard developer agreements where we have set aside the right-of-way necessary not only for the overpass, but also the water management, so we're trying to plan ahead to make sure that the real estate and everything is set aside so that in the future when we need it, we can just turn on the project. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Will there ever be an extension of Collier Boulevard north to Bonita. MS. SCOTT: That is identified in the long range transportation plan as a need; however, the roadway is not the envision that it was probably 20 years ago, I think, when Commissioner Schmitt was here, which was a roadway that went due north into Lee County, and extended all the way up, if I'm not mistaken, to Alico Road. It would have given access to the airport and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, it goes through a very environmentally sensitive area known as the DRGR in the Estero and Bonita Springs area, so Lee County has kind of backed off on that. So we continue to maintain an extension of Collier Boulevard; however, our extension of Collier Boulevard goes up and connects with Logan Boulevard just south of the Collier County, Lee County line. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it won't have much of an effect because Lee County won't increasing the lanes in on their section of it. MS. SCOTT: They have identified Collier Boulevard north of Bonita Beach Road as a need in their plan as well, but it has a lot of hurdles to go you through. And with that being said, the Collier County 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 31 of 63 portion, as well, will have a lot of hurdles to go through. It goes through a very environmentally sensitive slew area, so it would not be the cheapest project that I would be pursuing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signalling at this time, so I'd like to return to the existing deficiencies. I think there are two more. First one is 88.0, which is State Route 82 at 29. MS. SCOTT: Yes. Once again that's another state road waste system. FDOT currently has the section from Gator Slew Lane to State Road 29 under construction, so in that overall blink, it is kind of split in half and part of it is under construction currently. And the remaining portion to the Hendry County line is programmed for fiscal year '24. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The last one that I have is 92.0, east trail, if I've got this lined up right -- MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- or is it 91? MS. SCOTT: So that particular section is within the transportation concurrency exception area. We will be pursuing an operational analysis and coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as there are thoughts about the specific land uses along that corridor. There's been an overall planning study that the planning staff has implemented, so we are going to look at dovetailing as they're pursuing some of the overlay items and looking at an operational analysis as well so that we can identify if there are opportunities to be able to do innovative intersections to increase the capacity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signalling at this time. I don't have any further questions with respect to traffic and transportation. Does anyone else? If not, thank you, Ms. Scott. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we need to consider our agenda for today, and getting back to commissioner Klucik's idea, now may be the time for us to temporarily defer further consideration of the AUIR and go right to members of the public and ask them to speak on the revised conditions of the Iglesias. Staff, what do you think of that idea? MR. BOSI: I'm not sure how much more do you guys -- how many more questions you have on the AUIR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question to ask us. I just have one or two on wastewater and water, and that's all that I will have. What about others? Well, should we -- if that's the case -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why don't you ask yours? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why don't you ask your water, wastewater. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is Ms. Patterson going to present on that? MR. BOSI: There's no presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. MR. BOSI: It's just questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My question has to do with the -- profitability is not exactly the correct word, but a sufficient return on the taxpayers' investment, the taxpayers as whole of Collier County. I was re-educated following the hearings on the RLSA Villages to embrace or at least accept the concept that the county taking over wastewater and freshwater, potable water for these areas was a good investment, not only good for quality control purposes, but also something that was not going to unduly burden the taxpayers or even better than that, would be a wise investment for the taxpayers, and I heard that from numerous sources whom I believe to be credible, and I'd like to know if that is still the point of view of staff that these investments that we're making in order to provide water and wastewater services to the eastern part of the county, specifically the estates and specifically along Oil Well, whether these -- the staff continues to be of the view that these are wise investments from the viewpoint of the taxpayer at large. MR. FYEY: For the record, Eric Fey, principal project manager for utility planning. I'm going to refer that question to our director of financial services operations. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 32 of 63 MR. BELLONE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Bellone. I'm the director of financial operations for public utilities department of which the water sewage district is a large part of that. And yes, to answer your question, briefly, we do believe that the investment we're making in terms of new infrastructure, as well as the acquisition of at least 20,000 or more new accounts in terms of the future revenue stream that will provide funding for rehabilitation of aging infrastructure elsewhere in the county, it's a great investment for the utility to make. The utility, like the airline industry, is really dependent on mass, and the more people we have connected to the system, the more profitable. Profit is not the right word, because that separates such that the revenues we recover cover the operating and rehabilitation costs, so yes, we consider it to be a good investment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Just further then, we as a Planning Commission and the BCC heard a lot when we were considering the RLSA Villages. A lot from -- well, the conservancy of Southwest Florida and their counsel presented significant details, and their conclusion was $188.5 million was going to be the cost of the county providing waste water and water as a result of Long Water and Belmar. Now, that argument was not accepted by this Planning Commission and was not accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. And I want to be sure that -- that the county is still of the view that that evidence that was presented, 188 million of cost, either that number is high or is accurate, but it's going to be recovered in time to the advantage of the individual taxpayer at large. MR. BELLONE: It will be -- that investment will be recovered in time at the time of connection, so as you understand, impact fees for the utility and specifically are recovered at time of connection; however, the utility has to have the pipes and implants in place to deliver that service when the CO is issued. So it's why we go out and we borrow ahead of time. MR. KLATZOW: Joe, what's our bond rating on this project? MR. BELLONE: They're all triple A, and have been since 2000. MR. KLATZOW: Think about step. Wall Street's spoken. You can't get a better bond rating and we've got -- our return on investment there is spectacular. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. I just wanted to make sure that we're still of the view that this is not going to be a saddle in the back of the taxpayers. I know it's going to take a little while, but eventually, we want this to not be a burden. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The way you can see that is look on the tables the amount of revenues they collect through just the monthly billing, it's a big number. That's what really impacted my thought process. But let me ask you another question. What do you -- what do you see as the rates? Here's the rates today. What's happening to them over the next -- what's the plan? Are there planned increases? MR. BELLONE: Well, we just completed a user fee rate study that we had a rate consultant do for us. We brought it to the board. They recommended due to the increases in construction costs, for repair and rehabilitation projects mainly, and then we're still trying to understand whether the current cost increases in terms of utility parts, we've seen it on the news. We seen containers out on the ocean, so we're having deliver problems in terms of ports. Those costs are going up. We don't know if it's long term or short-term, so we're seeing short-term cost increases in parts and we're seeing longer term increases in construction. So what we had the board do is even though we looked a five-year outlook and, again, based on assumptions that we had last year, we had the board approve and a 2.9 percent utility rate increase, which is pretty much in line with utility inflation, if you will, cost inflation. And we had other reports that if you look nationally, that rate is up closer to three-and-a-half, 3.7 percent. If you look at our history, we've probably looked at 2.9 percent annual average rate increases since the end of the recession. MR. KLATZOW: The rates tend to go up over time. We're switching over from cheap water from the Tamiami reservoirs, it was, to Hawthorne, which is over 2000 feet deep. So your cost of water 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 33 of 63 will go up as the blended product shifts mostly from the cheaper water to the more expensive water and we're not going to be getting permits from the state to tap into the Tamiami, just not. So your cost -- everything staying the same as far as construction cost and everything else, just the cost of water alone, the cost to treat it because it's slightly brinish, the cost to extract it because it requires energy to bring up that distance, your water will go up. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The reason I'm asking that is a follow-up to the chairman's question just to reinforce. To me the ultimate answer to the question is the rates aren't going up because of any construction projects that are serving eastern Collier County, and that's why I was asking, they're going up from normal cost of materials and cost of labor type things and that, to me, reinforces that the taxpayers aren't paying for that growth out there. MR. KLATZOW: No. No. As your population increases, whether it's out east or out west or north or wherever it's increasing, we have to tap into more expensive sources of water. So it's fair to say that the increase in population will lead to an increase in cost. If Collier County went back to 10,000, 20,000 people, water would be relatively cheap, because it's relatively sufficient. But the more and more people you stack here, the harder it is to gets water, more expensive it is to treat water, so growth will lead to more expensive water, but it doesn't matter if it's back east or what corridor it is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is like cost of goods sold and it's going to be passed on to the consumer. MR. KLATZOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I had just a real simple technical question that might be better -- we're adding some wells and stuff, just general information, since most of our water comes from the wells. What are we seeing in all of our wells? Are they dropping? Are they -- what's going on with that? I know you said in here the aquifer is capable of handling the yield that we'd be taking with the additional wells, but are we comfortable that ground water supplies are not dwindling out there and we're continuing to tap into them? MR. FEY: Yes. For the record, Eric Fey, principal project manager for utility planning. We are well positioned for future growth in terms of water supply. We have adequate allocations through our water use permits. Our well field as detailed in the AUIR report has ample wells within the planning horizon and those wells are performing. Over time yields from wells does degrade, but we've implemented maintenance programs to resource at please a portion of lost it capacity to those wells and we do have additional permitted well sites that have not yet been constructed so as wells do fail in the future, well in the future, they can be replaced. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How is the aquifer doing, is kind of what my question is. MR. FEY: Regarding aquifer, we aren't seeing an increase in the level of the aquifer declining or any water quality issues. There is some salinity increase in a few well locations, but it's not at a high level across the aquifer at large. We don't have a large-scale issue. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Fey. No one is signalling at this point. What's the wish of the Planning Commission? We've had members of the public sitting here all morning. I want to get to a point where we can hear them as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we ready for a motion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can certainly proceed in that fashion. Is the Planning Commission ready to vote on this? It seems as though they are. The chair will entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to accept the AUIR and recommend approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the CIE? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All at the same time? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The CIE. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 34 of 63 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And the CIE, too. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Chris Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's moved and seconded to accept the AUIR and CIE and pass them on the Board of County Commissions for the recommendation of approval. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes unanimously. Thank you, staff. MR. BOSI: Thank you, chairman. I'd just like to thank all the participating staff for making themselves available, and we will coordinate next year. We will plan on individual presentations from the majority of the contributors. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, staff. MR. BOSI: And we will work with the Planning Commission a little bit longer in terms of getting the materials available to you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think the goal is to find that balance between micromanaging and just rubber stamping. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The second matters to come before us today are companions. PL20190001333 is the 8th Street Northeast, 22nd Avenue Northeast Subdistrict small scale growth management plan and it's companion PL20190001326 is the Iglesias Pentecostes conditional use application. And Planning Commission will recall that we began hearing these matters at our September 16th meeting and continued that hearing to today in order to provide an additional opportunity for the petitioner to assess and refine its conditions for use in order to address the numerous objections we heard from nearby residents of the rural estates community. Even though we closed public comment at our last meeting, I would strongly recommend to the Planning Commission that we reopen that comment in view of the revised conditions that have been submitted, and I think those condition revisions are the only things that are new and, therefore, we would ask, respectfully, that members of the public, when they speak, confine their comments to whether the new condition satisfactory resolved their concerns and if so, fine; if not, why not, so that we can get a sense of how the public has perceived the new conditions. And let's see. So this is -- this is quasi judicial because of the conditional use and so all those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by court reporter. ***** THE [COURT REPORTER]: Do you swear or affirm the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? THE AUDIENCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, disclosures from the Planning Commission, please. Starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of the materials in the public records. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials and I will point out I was absent when this was first heard, but I have gone back and watched much the proceedings on Collier TV. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In my case, nothing further since my previous disclosure except further 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 35 of 63 communications with staff and review of revised conditions of use materials from the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Long for me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No disclosure for me either. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm going to run this by the Planning Commission and find out if it meets with your approval. Once again, we've got members of the public who have been sitting here patiently for a while. Ordinarily, we'd have the applicant make a presentation and perhaps we want the applicant to make a brief presentation, but I'd like to get to the members of the public as soon as we can and then go back to the applicant for further presentation. I don't want to cut the applicant off; I just want to hear the people who have been sitting here all morning. Anybody object to that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. It's fine with me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would just ask that, we have a lot of people, that the speakers please try not to be redundant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good point. And I think it's the sense, if I can interpret -- feel the pulse of the Planning Commission here, I believe it's the sense that we should ask, respectfully, that the members of the public limit their comments to three minutes. Does that meet with everyone's approval? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then that's what we'll do. Applicant, why don't you take 15 minutes, at most to give us an introduction to the revised conditions, and if you can cut it even shorter than that, that's fine. We will give you all the time you need after that. MR. MARTIN: For the record my name is Justin Martin. I'm the brother of the pastor, Jorge Martin of the Iglesias Pentecostes Peniel Church. I just came to make really brief additions to the statements that were made during the last Planning Commission meeting, and I'll defer to staff to go over the details of all of the individual revisions if staff is ready to did that; if not, I can read them right off of the screen here. I just want to highlight a couple of things. So in order to do that, I need connect this computer to the laptop. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While you're doing that, I'm going to ask staff to weigh in on how much time they will need to give a staff presentation in before we can turn to members of the public. MR. BOSI: Staff has no presentation. We coordinated with the applicant on the revised conditions of approval. Other than that, there's no other additional material or commentary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. MR. MARTIN: I just wanted to highlight some of the things, because some of the concerns at the last Planning Commission meeting were about the hours of operation, and as you can see on the screen here, there's going to be two days a week for services. And those hours of operations have been clearly identified now from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. That's it. Two services a week limited to those hours, and that would be a condition of approval. Further in there there's administrative functions that would be no more than five individuals at the church during normal business hours, 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday. There was concerns last time expressed about baptisms and bake sales. There will be no baptisms or bake sales. This church does its baptisms at the beach and it does not conduct bake sales. It's not part of what this church believes. Weddings and funerals would be limited to no more than one occurrence on a single day. And the hours for those are as specified herein. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 36 of 63 The -- the church will not rent its site or facility to outside groups or organizations. Outdoor services or activities will not be conducted as a condition of approval here. They are prohibited. There will be no outdoor amplified sound. No daycare services, no private schools, no soup kitchens or homeless shelters will be at this church. The floor area of 5,000 square feet, which will have no more than 100 seats, and that was reduced during the staff review process from 250 down to 100. No parking along the street will be allowed. That was a concern during last Planning Commission meeting. And all services will be indoors. There won't be any outdoor services. Bear with me here. Okay. I just wanted to highlight some of the differences between this subject church, which is the proposed church now versus the one that was approved back starting from 2011 to 2017, which is on the corner of Everglades and Randall. That site there is 7.8 acres. This church site is five acres. The floor area that was approved in the STP for that church is 17,000 square feet. This one's only 5,000 square feet. Seats approved for that other church, 230 seats. Seats proposed, maximum, for this church is 100. Building heights are the same. Steeple height in that case it was 60 feet. This one is less and may not be even be 50 feet. That's just maximum allowable. Hours were not specified for the other church. As I just mentioned the hours of operation for the services for this church are specified and they're very limited. Parking for the other church has 130 paved spaces, 21 grass spaces in comparison to this church, 30 spaces paved, 15 grass spaces. This. Is what the approved STP for the other church was, which was in the Estates residential zone, as compared to the conceptual site plan for this church. It's a small 5,000 square foot church. The -- that square footage is roughly about the size of if you were to sell these two lots as residential and you add those two -- two homes developed, about the same square footage. So it's -- it's not -- it's not a very large square footage. There is support for this church. We have, on paper, 519 signatures in support of this church. I'll just scroll down through some of these, and that 519 are Golden Gate Estates residents. We did get an additional 13 signatures on here, but those are not Golden Gate Estates residents so you'll see those crossed out on here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Martin, question about outdoor events. So I live in a Golden Gate Estates community called Oakes Estates and we have several churches in our midst, one of which is right on our main spine street, Oakes Boulevard. They have a couple of -- a few outdoor events a year. They have a trunk or treat coming up; they have a living nativity around Christmastime. You have no plans for any type of outdoor activity? My main question for you is really you have put a -- I think they have a lot of conditions. I was not here at the first meeting, but you have -- Is this enough for you? Does this support the growth of the church that, perhaps, is inevitable? No outdoor events. These are pretty limiting things that you're agreeing to. MR. MARTIN: They are limiting things and they are done with concern for the neighborhood and to be a good neighbor. You mentioned a trunk or treat. This church doesn't do those types of events. Yes. It will be a condition of approval there are no outdoor events. Everything will be limited to the indoor to help ease some of the concerns of the neighbors. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Sir, if you could wrap up your initial presentation about the next three minutes. You'll have all the time you need after that. I'm sorry. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: When were these signatures obtained, roughly. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 37 of 63 MR. MARTIN: Roughly, they were dating back to June. June through early September. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Were these part of the prior presentations. MR. MARTIN: They were submitted to staff. They were not included in the prior presentation. There was mention of them, but we didn't show these on screen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MARTIN: At that last presentation I mentioned, we had over 400 signatures. Right now we have over 519. And rather than have these residents come up here and speak one by one, I'll just show it to you on this list here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Would you allow us to hear from the public now, recognizing -- MR. MARTIN: I don't have -- I just a couple more minutes and I'll be -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. MARTIN: -- finished. Okay. I just wanted to point out that these two are the properties. These are the two properties that are being combined for the church which is on the corner of 8th Street Northeast and 22nd Avenue Northeast. Part of the submittal for this review process to staff, there was a letter of support submitted. And let me show that. Okay. Here's the letter of support for the church. Note the address. Okay. That address corresponds with this parcel right here. There would be no more property affected by this development than this property right here. It abuts both properties. That letter of support comes from that property owner. Here's from the Collier appraiser's website. Here's the property owner in that letter of support. And I will defer to staff to go over all the details of the revised conditions of approval to address all the concerns from the commission and also from the public from last time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And we may be bringing you back up to answer some questions. I know I've got several questions about the revised conditions that would be most appropriately addressed to you, so I'll be asking you to come back up. Now -- and thank you for cutting your presentation short -- your initial presentation. Mr. Youngblood, who do we have to speak? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have seven speakers registered in person with us. We don't have any speakers registered online. Our first speaker is Heidi Severeyn followed by Rayanne Burton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you wouldn't mind just spelling your last name for us, please. MS. SEVEREYN: S-E-V-E-R-E-Y-N. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. SEVEREYN: Just to go off of the last thing he said, there is another property abutting it in the back, and that person doesn't share the same opinion, just an FYI, because there is other property owner that's adjoined to that property. Just to make that clear. Okay. My name is Heidi Severeyn. I live on 22th Avenue Northeast, which is this street that this is going to be on. And I'm voicing my opinion in -- or my opposition to the rezoning of it. I have a few points I'd like to go over, and I appreciate you guys. I know you guys do this gratis, so thanks for, you know, taking one for the team today, I guess. All right. The first thing is the Golden Gate Master Plan was recently revised in 2019. There's major intersections where things can happen, and this really is not one of them, just as a quick point. And it takes away from, like, housing that somebody could actually buy housing, which it's not that common as Golden Gate Estates type housing that people can buy and, it is quite popular nowadays. The church only has one entrance because of how its situated and it's on 22nd, so the entrance and the exit are on our little street. I have pictures and videos if you want. I know you guys are busy; you don't go cruising to every single place you have to do a -- make a decision on, but many of the examples given previously of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 38 of 63 different churches that are in general area, they have street -- many street exits. This is just the one on our little street. And that -- and if you look at the video, it's not a great entrance and exit of how it would happen if you're actually looking at our little street. I'm not trying to be mean or anything like that, but it's not really the best. I think an important point is that the church has a growing congregation, which they said many times, which is great and, honestly, nobody on our street is against is a church. I just want to make that clear to everybody. But it seems as if this place will outgrow -- the congregation will outgrow this before this church is even built. The church activities, I appreciate that they, you know, want to curtail different things to try and, you know, help; I understand that, but it's almost impossible to -- I mean, it's fairly hard to actually regulate, you know, certain things on certain days, because I mean, certain holidays don't fall on those two particular days and just different things end up -- or you can petition to have extra things later, which is easier when something is already in. So that's another thing. And also, the last time after I had to leave to pick my kids up, you guys were talking with the petitioner, and the -- the petition, it says, oh, well, there's not a precedence for if this gets changed to a nonresidential use. Well, it does, because once a lot's changed to conditional use, you can't argue that it changes the nature of the neighborhood anymore, because that's already changed. So everything else would -- you know, you would have no recourse for why you could say no to the next plot being that way, and that is a precedence. It really is. And we are close enough to Randall that it just would keep coming. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, with respect, I'm going to ask you a question that would indicate what is important for me to hear from you and for the other members of the public. Have you read the revised conditions? MS. SEVEREYN: Well, I haven't read the entire thing, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. You heard an initial presentation? MS. SEVEREYN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does it seem as though they're moving in the right direction or not? MS. SEVEREYN: It's not that they're not moving in the right direction, it's that the whole point is we don't want something that's not a residential house on our -- in the interior of the Golden Gate Estates, and that's the foundational point of what I'm talking about. There's other places where things could happen, like where -- well, I was going to say that place that's a little timeshare is still available that they can actually have their entire congregation that they want it to grow into, parking lot, playground, major roads to get to it in and out, and it's almost as if it's, yes, yes, yes, we'll do everything, but it's just not the right place for this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. I'm going to ask for a show of hands. Those who have asked to speak and be heard on this, please raise your hands if you have not read -- or are not familiar with the revised conditions. Because that's what, I think, we want to hear about. Ms. Burton, you have not seen them or heard them? MS. BURTON: We didn't know it was available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But everybody else seems to have. All right. Well, let's continue and -- I want to be sure I'm speaking for the rest of the Planning Commission. Personally, I want to hear the public's reaction to the revised conditions, and I want to be sure that the speakers have had an opportunity to look at those revised conditions. What is it -- what does the rest of the Planning Commission feel? COMMISSIONER FRY: Why don't we put them up? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I thought we just did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Is there a way of circulating them or is it too late to do that? MR. BOSI: I could try to get somebody to print them for me, if that's the desire of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if you could get it done in five or ten minutes, I think that would be pretty good. We don't need many copies. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If you don't mind, and I should have -- I'm sure they were in my 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 39 of 63 packet, but I'd really like to see exactly what those 500 people signed off on and what that next door neighbor signed off on. I couldn't really read it from the screen. As long as you're printing stuff, just those two pages I wanted to look at. MR. BOSI: The -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: It would be the first page of the 519 signatures and the one page of the next door neighbor on 8th Street. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We're at a pause here, so -- again, I'd like to be guided by what the Planning Commission wants to do with the rest of its hearing on this. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't think it hurts to do this. It's probably a good idea, what you're suggesting, but my perception is the objectors object to a church in the area and believe it violates the master plan. So even if they cut it down to one service, it doesn't really matter. It's not necessarily a bad idea you're suggesting; I don't mind that; I'm just saying I'm not sure that changes their position. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I think that might be the case, and so I'm not trying to tell members of the public what they should say, but if that's your point of view, it would be helpful for us to hear it. And if you have -- also, it would be helpful for me if there are any points that have improved this application from your perspective as a result of the change of the conditions, I'd like to hear about that as well. Ms. Severeyn, do you have anything further? You're kind of beyond time. MS. SEVEREYN: Yes. Well see, last time it got changed where they changed conditions again and then we had to come back and then it's like we thought you guys were going to vote and kind of find out more information, but now there's revised conditions again and we only get three minutes. It's like changing the ball game posts sort of in midstream. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We may suggest further changes, too. It may still be -- MS. SEVEREYN: But it seems like you're always -- it just seems -- and I appreciate because I know you're doing your homework. I'm not even getting that, but -- yeah. It's just kind of confusing to people when they have to try -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You and other members of the public are certainly entitled to take the position that no matter how these conditions are changed, it's not compatible. MS. SEVEREYN: That -- I mean, that's essentially what we're saying, because that's what you would have to make a point of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And when a speaker -- if that's what a speaker feels, please let us know. Now, we may take the opportunity of trying to improve further upon the conditions, but that doesn't necessarily signal how we're going to vote at the end. MS. SEVEREYN: That's perfectly fine. It's just -- this is a learning curve for me, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We look forward to seeing you at the next hearing. Thank you very much. Mr. Youngblood, who do we have next? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Rayanne Burton followed by Gustavo Marin. MS. BURTON: Good morning. My name is Rayanne Burton. I had a speech, but I had to keep changing it. The whole thing comes down to we're not against a religion; we're not against a church being built; we're against it being built where it is. I went online and I got their list of support. I took off names that they didn't take off that were out of the area. There's also six pages, the very last, three of them are duplicates and that is a total of 52 names extra on this list of 409 that I have. I sorted it in Excel to find out who was living in by addresses. I found out that narrows it down to 225 houses. One address had ten people in it at one time. What it comes in, I was also working on the people that don't want to come -- don't want the church. I got 89 names out of their 247 and I couldn't finish it at 3:00 o'clock this morning. The issues are, we want free from traffic congestion. It is not a thorough street like Randall and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 40 of 63 Everglades, which is a major road. I travel it daily. It also is going to be four to six lanes. This is only two. We want to be free from traffic congestion and air pollution. I want to be able to see the stars at night. I want to be free from the noise when enjoying my latter years, a better quality of life. Putting a church in the middle of this is not appropriate for the area. We travel to get where we want to go. We moved there to get away from it. I travel Sunday 21.6 miles to my church and it takes me 34 minutes on a good day, and that's on Sunday. We moved there because of the open space to see the birds and enjoy our environment. This is just not appropriate. I know the people want to have a church and I've -- everybody should have a church to go to. But it has to be compatible. Why would anybody want to build a church in a residential area where the majority of the people do not want them there? And I'm still working on the list of those that don't want it, and I found out maybe 89, a lot of them live right in the immediate area. Also, I tried to match the support list against their map that they put on there. So far I have only found four people that match the big five mile circle. So please consider this. It is not appropriate for our area. We moved there to get away from the city. If I wanted to walk to a church, I would have been in Naples or Golden Gate Estates. Whatever the changes they're going to make, it's not going to be. 100 seats is not how many people that's going to be in that church. It's not, no matter what they say. They can't help it. On Easter what happens? Everybody wants to go to church on Easter. You're going to tell your relatives that they can't come over from Hialeah or from Fort Myers? I found residents that are listed in here. I found them off of Davis Boulevard. I found several of them behind the Collier Immokalee apartments, the shopping center behind there. One is by Great Naples Fire Department. That's not in the area, but that's on their list of support. Yes, I took the ones off of the nonsupport for the same reason. So please, reconsider this. They have the property. They can sell it and go somewhere where they have a better access, transportation and road access and less congestion and maybe a better spot for them, too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Gustavo Marin followed by Juan Hernandez. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And while the gentleman is a approaching, I'll ask the court reporter whether she needs a break. COURT REPORTER: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're okay? Okay. All right. You have the floor. Please spell your last name. MR. MARIN: My name last name is Marin, M-A-R-I-N. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MARIN: Good morning, commissioners. I want to congratulate you for a well-run city and a well-run county. I travel all over Florida and I think Collier County is one of the best run counties in Florida. And I don't mean that just to win your approval, I mean it -- I really mean it. It's a really, really good city to live in and a good county. I don't think 100 people is going to stop Mrs. Burton from seeing the birds or seeing is the night sky that she claims. I don't think that's the case. Our mother church right now is located in Naples Park on 107th Avenue. We're surrounded by -- by every residential -- she's claiming that the -- based on the traffic on holidays and Easter is going to be tremendous. We never had a problem. We're in Naples Park on 107th Avenue. We're surrounded by every little house right next to it. The church is -- practically has a half an acre and it's surrounded by houses all over, and we never had a complaint from anybody, and this is a mother church. This is a larger church. And then you talk about 100 people. According to what they're saying, they don't want a church, period. No matter what you do, no matter how much you bend over, they don't want nothing. They don't want you there. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 41 of 63 And let me tell you, a church is there to help the community. A church is there to help people -- I mean, we're right now in a moral decay. The society is in a moral decay. We're there to teach the Ten Commandments, teach the Bible. We're a conservative church. We're not a liberal church. We teach the Bible the way it is taught, and we try to help people better themselves. Then why stop this? Why don't you -- why don't the people, instead of going against the church, because they're claiming it's going to ruin their lifestyle -- it never going to ruin their lifestyle. We never had a complaint by anybody around Naples Park. Never. And we're a larger church than they're going to build. It's 100 people. And if their concern is that we're going to grow to a mega church in a 5,000 square foot building? No. Give me a break. If our church gets bigger, we will build another one someplace else. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: So doing it now. MR. MARIN: We're not -- No. Because right now -- you know the price of rent and home values are skyrocketed, and we need to build the church so we can afford it. That's the reason we're building this church. Every year the rents go up, the -- you know, everything goes up and it's too much for a little church to pay. That's why we desperately need this church. Now, if they're scared that we're going to go into a mega church, no. 5,000 square foot, that's all it is. If we need more room, if a member go to 200 or 150 or whatever the case, we're going to build another one, because we got the members to do it, but now it's just a small church and they'll have no fear. The hours of operation don't -- are Sunday where everybody -- where traffic is low. On Wednesday night, everybody's already home from work. So there's going to be no congestion. It's just a benefit for the community that this church is built to support the people that need to go to church instead of driving all the way from -- from wherever they are, because -- some members have to travel 40 miles to go to church, so now this make it convenient for them to be built right at that spot, and make access to them. And believe me, this is a going to be a benefit to the community, not a minus. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Juan Hernandez filed by Emilio Berne. MR. HERNANDEZ: Good morning. My name is Juan Hernandez. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll ask the translator to identify herself, please. THE INTERPRETER: Hi. My name is Elizabeth Marquina, M-A-R-Q-U-I-N-A. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Give her a chance. THE INTERPRETER: So he was saying that considering the church would be an amazing thing for community and for the states in general, because the state has been like growing and stuff like that; they're making new schools, new, you know, facilities and all that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. THE INTERPRETER: And he says that the church also educates and helps children like who may not have an education that like need help to like be educated. And that's you all. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, both of you. Next speaker. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Next speaker is Emilio Berne followed by Martha Vance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sir I'll ask you to spell your last name for us if you don't mind. MR. BERNE: Hello. Good morning. My name is Emilio Berne, B-E-R-N-E. CHAIRMAN FRYER: B-E-R-A-E? MR. BERNE: N-E. CHAIRMAN FRYER: B-E-R-N-E. Got it. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 42 of 63 MR. BERNE: I live in Golden Gate Estates. I belong to the Alva Peniel Church. THE INTERPRETER: So he belongs to -- like he goes to Alva Peniel Church and he says that he considers that the church is a good opportunity, so we can have a more expanded area, because like our church is growing from that small like place. At our church with preach the gospel for kids, youth, adults and even the elders. Thank you very much and God bless you guys. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Next speaker is Martha Vance followed by Michael Ramsey. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to be heard now, Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: I was just going conditions of approval are out on the table on the hall. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. BOSI: They're out on the table for anybody who may want them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Members of the public, if you want to see those conditions, they're out there on the table. Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Go ahead, Ms. Vance. MS. VANCE: Hi. First of all, I want to thank each of you on the commission, because you spend your time and your energy for the taxpayers purpose to make sure that we are -- I'm not doing this right. Let me go back to my notes. Thank you for your time and energy you spend on the commission and the seriousness of which you undertake your job as you try to do right by the taxpayers. I really appreciate it. And the county's residents, of course. Regarding what that gentleman just said about the sister church or the mother church, somebody received an e-mail or a text that said my co-worker's son lives in the 700 block off 106th Avenue in Naples Park, which is one street south from where the sister church is located. The surrounding neighbors always have complaints about noise, traffic and parking. Okay. Now, for what I wanted to say. My purpose for being here, I am not, just like I think I said before, in opposition to the church, but the location is wrong. Would you agree with me that a plan is only as good as its implementation? My thoughts. Churches and many other organizations do good things for the community. It is their purpose. It is expected. It is appreciated. But that is not relevant. It is not a criteria in the land development code or Florida Statutes. This is a land use change and a decision to recommend approval or denial should be based only on criteria adopted in the land development code and Florida Statutes. Before buying the property, the buyer has an obligation to do their due diligence. Golden Gate Estate residents should know that conditional use opportunities are strictly limited by design. Their church should have done its due diligence and known this is not a location that is allowed a conditional use by the Golden Gate area master plan. The community should not have to bear the burden of their poor business practice. And I believe I mentioned when I was here before that two years ago, I think it was, when they put in their application or petition, they were told by staff that this was going to be an issue with the Golden Gate Estates residents. The urban designated area does not have locational criteria for conditional uses in the future land use element by design. This is Golden Gate Estates and the Golden Gate area master plan does have conditional use locational criteria by design. If the Collier County Planning Commission recommends approval of this comprehensive plan amendment based on the flimsy supported data provided that the congregation lives nearby, the traffics are minimal, that the people want it there, then it is setting a low bar for future plan amendments to allow conditional uses and would essentially render the Golden Gate area master plan's locational criteria useless. We, the residents, got together, met with staff. Restudy was done back in 2019. It was not that long ago. There's no reason for you not to follow that. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 43 of 63 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our final speaker for this item is Michael Ramsey. MR. RAMSEY: Commissioners, good to see you. My name is Michael Ramsey. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. We have reviewed the changes of the petitioner, and we understand them and we find that they statutorily have not met their two obligations as listed in the plea out. There's not met a need for the church and they have not provided appropriate research for alternate sites. I might also add that these changes, this could open up more areas for alternate site discussion or evaluation. Again, they have not met the two primary statutory requirements as listed in the plea out. Also in the plea out, the petitioner was instructed to make contact with the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. They did not. Since the last meeting they were instructed to work with the opposition. They still have not reached out to us. We did meet last night and discussed this in detail. Question for the last meeting was, is a church to be built here, is it more of an impact than a single family home. Yes. It is more of an impact than a single family home. And we can say primarily most of our homes don't have 50-foot steeples and 30-foot structures and don't have 30-to-50-car parking lots. Mr. Bosi gave a very good review of the GMP and its issues with this type of conditional use. The GMP -- the Golden Gate management plan, I'm sorry, is in existence to control, and restrict and provide guidelines for conditional uses in a location. The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association has been involved with the Golden Gate Master Plan since its inception and every update since. And this petitioner, even with the changes, does not fit this location per the Golden Gate Master Plan. And the petitions, it is our understanding that petitions, if they're properly constructed, that the people that sign those petitions should be registered voters in the county of the petition. I don't think that is the case in this -- for this petition. So the hours of operation, even with the changes, still impact what we consider most important quality of life components, evenings at night, holidays and weekends. Their main operations. It still affects our quality of life components we value and cherish. And the last -- the most important thing I remember from the last meeting was a comment that this is a growing church. It looks like it's going to continue to grow. And to put a church like that that's going to grow and grow that fast in this location will constantly impact quality of life components to the residents. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Any further registered speakers? Anyone who is present but has not registered wish to be heard, now would be the time. I don't see any hands raised, so with that, we will turn it back to the applicant and then we'll here from staff. Applicant, do you have more? I don't think you need to repeat things you've already said but I don't want to cut you short, so -- MR. MARTIN: Understand. I just want to go over some things that I've heard during the public speakers here. There's been, ever since the beginning of this process, misconception and misinformation about that this is a rezone. This is not a rezone. This is a conditional use in Golden Gate Estates residential zoning. It is not a rezoned to a commercial use. I just want to make that clear. And at the beginning I thought we're -- this was going only going to be about the public comments on the new conditions, but I heard the same opposition and even more since the last meeting. Concerning the entrance, and there is one entrance, and that is because there was a TIS done, and Collier County staff reviewed it and they asked us to put the entrance on that street that far back from the intersection because of traffic as to not put traffic onto the main street. That's why the entrance is on -- on the side street. That's why there's only one entrance. And that's by design as suggested by 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 44 of 63 Collier County transportation staff. We complied with that. Again, traffic. This is not during peak hours. This is on a Sunday, and it's on a Wednesday evening. It's not during peak hours. It's not during the morning rush hour, not during the afternoon or evening rush hour. I heard about outgrowing and then coming back and asking to -- get a foot in the door and then asking for other things. You can't grow past what the maximum size of this building is, which is 5,000 square feet. There is no -- nothing in here about accessory structures, accessory uses, any types of events that are not permitted, all those are specified clearly in conditions of approval, so it's a strong argument to say that this will get your foot in the door, then you're going to have all these functions, all the events, no. That's clearly spelled out in the conditions of approval. So that's a miss -- that's misinformation. I heard one speaker say that they travel 21 miles to go to church. Well, wouldn't it be nice for the residents of this community to have a church that they can go to and not add to traffic onto Immokalee Road, which is already taxed, and all the other roads in the county. If you have a local church, there's no need for you to travel 20, 40, 50 miles to go to another church. There was talk about signatures, and the speaker herself admitted that she was only able to verify 89 of the signatures on her list that were not in support of it. The signatures that we submitted are public record. Okay? There's also talk about the civic association. All I heard at the last meeting and this meeting, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think there was anything submitted to staff saying that there was signatures from this civic association with these members that are opposed to it. So we have one person from that civic association and we have half dozen here that are in opposition. Same as last meeting. One of the speakers said that churches bring good things to the community, but good things are not relevant. Really? This, again, like I mentioned last meeting is not a precedent. There's already about a dozen churches in Golden Gate Estates. We put that map up on the list at the last meeting. This is not setting any precedent. There's even a precedent after the master plan amendment was prepared, and that's the church that referred to earlier at the corner of Everglades and Randall. That's a church that's three times as large, has more seats, more parking. This is just a fraction of that. This is a small church on two small residential lots that are being combined. It's a 5,000 square foot church. There will never be more than 100 people at that facility. The concern about growth. Well, when a church grows, just like -- the original church that was mention in Naples Park, that started there. As the need grows and you have members coming in from outside the area, that's where the -- where the facilities are built for those needs. There's a church -- the second church is in Immokalee. And that right now is in the process of going through all the permitting and construction. This is one here. So if -- if it grows, it would be wherever the needs are. Not here. Not in this location. And I just want to make this statement, also, that the church has no other properties in Golden Gate Estates that they purchased that they plan to come back and do a conditional use, growth management plan amendment. Understand -- the church now understands that if the need occurs for something at another location, that's where they're going to look for it, where it is a -- permittable with those conditions. I heard a comment about only registered voters should be allowed to speak or state their support or opposition. That, to me, sounds like you're really minimizing other people who are not registered voters. That just -- it didn't sit right. Those are people, too, even though they're not registered voters. And I don't want to get into the list of, you know, these many people are registered and those aren't. Bottom line is there's always going to be a handful of people who don't want it -- they've even said it to you here -- no matter what, even if it was a 100-square foot 10x10 building with two members, they would still be opposed to it. Going back to what I said at the previously meeting. Churches in residential zones have historically, going back to the founding of this country, you have churches in residential zones. It's not an 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 45 of 63 incompatible use. Understand what the lady said about the process, but this is part of the process, also. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Commissioner Fry to comment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a question. I plan to ask the same question to staff at the end. There was a statement about frequent complaints about traffic, noise and parking, I believe, at the Naples Park location. Can you please speak to that? MR. MARTIN: I'll let the Pastor speak to that. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I ask that question as a, I guess, foreshadowing, if there are frequent complaints there, might the same thing occur at this new location. PASTOR MARTIN: We are there 25 years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please identify yourself. PASTOR MARTIN: Oh. My name is Jorge Martin. Okay. I'm the senior pastor of the mother church. I have 25 years in that location. We don't have any complaints. I don't know where the information coming from. I don't want to say it's not truth, but we don't have any complaints from any neighbors and we have a lot of neighbors go to our church. So I don't -- I don't mention why somebody can say we have a lot of complaints, somebody live in -- or another street. Maybe somebody don't like the church. Because I hear about it; it's not a religion; it's not a church; it's not -- what is it? A location? That's what we tried to do. Accommodate the church in the good location. When we bought that building over there that was condition using for many, many years, we buy it from the Jehovah Witness home, so we have no problem. We're remodeling. The county even has a permit for doing everything we got. We never have objection in the church, like we can't park in the street. You can't see our landscaping. It's not because our church, but it's because (inaudible) is all over the neighborhood. We have nice, we're spending a lot of money because everybody can feel comfortable on that one. I guess -- Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, it did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. And I'll ask the applicant, certainly, we don't want to cut you off, but what we're most interested in hearing is anything new that you have to say. MR. MARTIN: I think the commission is aware of all the issues since the last commission meeting and this one, and I'm here to answer questions, but the complaints I just keep hearing is not in my -- not my backyard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to synthesize a couple of things. Since the last meeting, I identify three things have occurred. You got more supporting signatures, correct? MR. MARTIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And you further limited the use through what's on the screen, and one of the two adjacent neighbors has indicated in writing support for your church. MR. MARTIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Am I missing something? Is there something else knew that we didn't hear at the last meeting? I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. MR. MARTIN: No. The conditions of approval list everything that was revised since that last meeting and those were taken from notes from the Planning Commission meeting. We met with staff, had a meeting at the growth management and they drafted the revised conditions. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then setting aside the spirituality issue, what is the public benefit, other than possibly reduced traffic, to putting the church there? MR. MARTIN: Having a church local, like you mentioned would -- is traffic, and that also would mean more participation. It would mean a place for youth to go and get counseling. I can go into all the uses that a church does, but I'd rather have a pastor do that. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 46 of 63 The -- right now where that church is renting is a small space, and it's on Immokalee Road and it's further away. This puts the church closer to where the members are going to be, and it's minimal impact, if any. I invite any of you to go to any of these churches that are built in Golden Gate Estates and see if you notice the noise. Every time I drive by one of these churches there's nobody there. There's no noise. There couldn't be a better neighbor than a church. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Any further questions? No one is signalling. I'm going to ask staff for its presentation. MR. BOSI: My Bosi, planning and zoning director. There is no presentation. The staff has maintained their recommendation of approval and based upon the further conditions, feels that it is a neighborhood church that could -- that could find compatibility with the surrounding areas. One of the things that led us to the recommendation was the classification of 8th Street and expected functionality as a collector road and that's why staff felt it was appropriate to -- and with the additional conditions of approval, we're going to maintain our recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Bosi, Mr. Ramsey stated that the church did not meet two statutory requirements, which was appropriate research on its alternate locations and the need in that area. I just wondered if you could answer -- you've recommended approval; obviously, you believe that all statutory requirements were met, so if you could please speak to that. MR. BOSI: We believe that the statutes really do not speak -- if you're speaking to Florida Statutes, they don't speak to any conditions for approval from a local land use process. We believe that the applications have satisfied the local land use requirements. COMMISSIONER FRY: Last question. Statement of complaints at the Naples Park church. Have there been -- does the county have record of code enforcement violations or frequent complaints from neighbors of that church? MR. BOSI: I'd have to research that. That wasn't an issue that we would be prepared to -- we haven't done research on a church that wasn't part of this application. I mean, we understand it's associated with it, but we haven't -- we weren't provided any forensic investigations in terms of whatever code enforcement case -- I can coordinate it with my code enforcement director to see if there have been any cases in the past, but regarding this church, we look at this location and this proposal as it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would just like to ask our counsel, is there any issue as far as this doesn't meet statutory requirements, this petition. MR. KLATZOW: It would not have come to you unless my staff signed off on it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's what I thought. Our wise counsel would have made sure that we didn't fall into a trap. The other thing I guess I would just say, Commissioner Fry, I think we're putting -- I mean, you're giving consideration to what someone stated, but it was hearsay of hearsay. It was somebody that they knew had an e-mail or something. And if -- you know, given all the time and their organization, that they do have some organized opposition to this, it seems like they could have come up with something other than a passing reference. So I think it's deserves due weight. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I asked in an attempt to cover all bases, right? To address all concerns. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I appreciate that very much. Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would say -- I mean, I have six churches in my neighborhood. It's two square miles. Six churches. One of those six is down a side street and it's a mega church, and staff is aware of complaints, neighbor complaints and code violation complaints of that church. I don't -- I believe if there were a substantial amount of them, they would have somehow come to your attention. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 47 of 63 They would have been pointed out by the opposition or it would have already been well-known within the county circle, so Rob to your question, I'm really just trying to cover the bases and make sure that we vet this thoroughly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. And I appreciate it very much, and I just reiterate -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before I call on Commissioner Vernon -- I should have done this earlier, without objection we'll close the public comment portion of hearing. With that, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. I'm just speculating. Maybe I'm wrong, but I -- my assumption, when I heard the word statute, I thought they were talking about the Golden Gate Master Plan and it's not consistent with Golden Gate Master Plan is, basically, what that reference was. MR. BOSI: By nature of an amendment, it's not consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It would need the amendment to be consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. So until -- unless the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was amended as being suggested by their application, it's not consistent by its location. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just so we're all clear, what the standards for amending? MR. BOSI: The standards for amending the Golden Gate is you have to show a need, you have to show compatibility. There is a number of other -- capacity within the transportation system, the availability of infrastructure, the traditional things would be associated with a GMP amendment. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signalling at this point. I have some additional questions or issues that I want to see if I can get a concession from the applicant on before I make up my mind on this. Applicant, would you please come to the mic. 2B, which reads, the church shall not rent, et cetera. Are you familiar with that provision? MR. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you accept the following revised language, the church shall not allow its site or facilities to be used or occupied by any outside groups? MR. MARTIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: You're good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thanks. Of course, we have the master plan that shows only one structure, but the language limiting the space to one structure is no longer there. Would you agree to adding the language in the conditions that there only be one structure and it be no larger than 5,000 square feet. MR. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Again, I'm not necessarily signalling that I'm going to vote in favor of this, but I just wanted to get those points covered. So any -- let's have some discussion and deliberation and then we can take a vote. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd like to know if we find out if this building had code complaints. I'm trying to look it up on my phone, but I think you can look it up quicker than me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How long would that take, Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: I believe Mr. French heard the discussion and there may have been some correspondence that was provided to him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we can hear about that now? MR. BOSI: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Cook is approaching. MS. COOK: Good afternoon, Jaime Cook, your director of development review. There was one code complaint in 2002 that was investigated and there was a code complaint for redoing the parking lot in 2008. That was the only code complaints that growth management staff has 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 48 of 63 investigated on the property at the North Naples church. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those are the only ones of record. MS. COOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that answer for you? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Other questions or comments? I think it's about time for us to make up our minds and have a vote. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll just weigh in on my deliberation. As I said, I come from a neighborhood and we have six churches. Some are on the outskirts. Two are on the inside of our neighborhood. One is on a collector road or what was a collector road, the main spine road; the other one is down a small sub street. The one down the small sub street, basically, has become a mega church. It's just grown way beyond its use and so there have been frequent complaints, parking, noise, the nighttime amplified events, events every night of the week, basically, those types of things. The other churches that are in our neighborhood, and I'll it's cite to the one that's inside our neighborhood, and it's partly for the residents. I think that after being on this board for three years -- we're volunteers, right? So I come from a neighborhood and I came from a neighborhood board to join this. We're sensitive to churches in my neighborhood, and the one that's inside our neighborhood is like right in the middle of our main street. It has services maybe Wednesday night, definitely Sunday morning. I've seen zero detrimental impact on traffic from those off-hour events, and I would say the opposite. They've been a great blessing to our neighborhood in that they offer a place for people in our neighborhood to go. We don't all go there. I don't go there, but I don't begrudge other people in my neighborhood from having an additional place to go, as long as they're not detrimental to the peaceful enjoyment of the rest of us, and I can honestly say in this case, they've been beneficial to that. They've been offered us a meeting place. They've had offered events for kids. Frankly, the trunk or treat is a great service to the neighborhood. The living nativity is a great service to the neighborhood. Our board met at that church. They've offered to do anything they could to be a good neighbor to us. We've talked about the people coming from the northeast where there were churches on -- right mixed in residential areas. We also -- I'll state that, yes, it's not -- it is not consistent with the master plan. Neither is anything else we hear in this board. Everything that comes to us is an amendment to the master plan. We, as volunteers, we have to use our best judgment to decide, well, okay it's not in the master plan, but is it beneficial; is there a need; is it truly detrimental to the neighbors, and in this case, I -- three years, I've never seen a smaller project on this size parcel with greater buffering, with greater restrictions on the activities. I personally feel -- I'm worried you've hamstrung yourself too much in this case to be able to do what you need do. I'm assuming if you have 100-seat church and you have more than that as you grow and you have more -- you might have multiple services on a Sunday that -- but each one will be limited to 100 seats and within the hours that are stated in the conditions, right? If you violate those conditions, you now are in, you know, violation of code, and so those code enforcement violations, we'll have a record of them, and you'd be fined and such. I just -- I don't see any detriment to this church and where it's located. I do not see it would be a traffic impact on the neighbors; I don't see that it would be detrimental to them. I feel like it's a blessing and I would not say that about all churches by a long shot. Many I do not believe belong where they're applied to be. I just don't see a problem with this church, so I plan to vote in support. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Welcome comments. Vice-chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's just one thing you missed from last time. It's a 5,000 square foot building, so according to the fire code, it can fit 300 people. COMMISSIONER FRY: I didn't actually miss that; I saw that when I watched it on it, but I guess my 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 49 of 63 question is, they're limited to 100 seats in the church. It doesn't say they can't have more than 100 people there, but I just don't think that is a material difference that they're going to suddenly negatively impact the neighborhood because they have more people on a Sunday or a Wednesday night. I just don't -- I think that's out of the realm of where traffic is noticeable to the neighbors, or negatively impactful to the neighbor. My opinion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think it's going to stop growing here at this -- once the Growth Management Plan's been changed, then the door is open. COMMISSIONER FRY: So can you clarify that point? I think I know where you're going, but -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They are going to expand. All I've heard is how they're just growing and growing and growing and all these things they want to offer. It's not going fit here. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I don't think they've said that this would meet their long-term needs. I think they said that if it expands, similar to the Naples Park location where we have two code violations in 20 years, that they would pursue another project, so I believe they're -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They could have called the sheriff's department, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: No. That's very true. If there are any other sources of complaints, I'd love to have that knowledge before voting, but I don't know if that's possible. That was just my opinion. I'm just throwing it out there. I'd love to hear other responses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'd love to give you one. To me the issue is -- gets right down to the plan, and the plan doesn't allow it. We spent a lot of time -- I have nothing against the church and I'm sure it would be a benefit to the community. I don't see the community welcoming it with open arms. I don't -- at some point in time we have to stick to the plan. We spent a lot of time and effort to put a plan together that said maybe more churches should be on the periphery of it, not in the residential area, and to me, I view that as my role as -- unless there's a major overpowering reason to change the plans is to stick with the plan, so I would vote against it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I have to say I think your point is valid. I believe there's two legitimate points of view on this topic, I'm simply expressing mine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I find the church to be compatible with residential zoning. There's nothing that I can find anywhere that says it's not incompatible. The issue here as stated is the GMP amendment to amend the growth management plan. Once the growth management the plan is amended with this public hearing process, which is a process, of course, to provide the community time for input, as well as the applicant. Whether this is approved or not -- if it is approved, then the GMP -- it will be consistent with the GMP, because it is amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And of course, with approval, then it becomes consistent. And I understand the concerns of the community; however, a church to me is not incompatible with residential zoning, though it's identified not to be in this area, but the public hearing process allows for that process to move forward. And with that, I would -- I would support both the recommendation for the GMP amendment and the companion conditional use for approval if we call the vote, and I think this is really an issue that has to go to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I can just jump in and ask a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are you stating that this will have some precedential (sic) effect next time the church comes to the board. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It has no precedential effect, because conditional use is mutually exclusive. Each one is heard through the public hearing process, just as the amendments are, though it -- it does indicate an opportunity in the future, but it does not mean that it's -- it's is a precedence setting and that somebody can come in again and site this for their justification for another request. Each one is a separate public hearing. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 50 of 63 COMMISSIONER FRY: To that point, Joe, I think that's a great point. And in my neighborhood having the Naples Senior Center approved as the first, kind of, nonresidential -- it's a community service thing, but it was approved inside of a neighborhood not in the outskirts of the neighborhood, and I would say I do believe there is some precedential basis that the next people may be boyed (phonetic) by the fact that was approved, they go on to the next one. I believe in this case if you believe churches have no place on the inside of Golden Gate Estates, that, you know, that would be a reason to vote no on this. I have a different opinion. I believe that to think that churches can afford the places where the conditional uses have been specified in the plan by default, one after another with having things -- community service organization cannot afford the property in the places where they're technically supposed to put it, so -- and I happen to believe that churches inside a neighborhood, if they're not detrimental to neighbors are a good thing. So that's where I'm coming from. But I can see the opposite viewpoint that you don't want churches in Golden Gate Estates, you should vote no. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: This, I said last time, this is a close call. It remains a very, very close call. And just to speak to a couple of points. Even though I think -- and I raised this at the beginning, you guys seem to have your act together and you're probably going to grow more than whether you intend to grow or not. But my impression, and this is my impression, is they are not a mega church type. That's not their business model. Their business model is to plant small churches elsewhere, not to grow this church as big as they can. So I'm not quite as concerned about that, although I agree, the fire marshal said they can put 300 people in there. What is changed since the last one, real quickly, just what I went over with you, some supporting signatures; you put further limitations on use; one of your two adjacent neighbors approved. Public good. It sounds like it will reduce traffic because you're trying to get locals there. That's your whole business model and there's some youth benefit to that, even setting aside the spirituality issue, I think, and Joe said, you know, he considers you compatible and I think I agree with him. I think I said last time, although it's a really close call, I'd probably vote against it based on what I knew, for the reasons Paul stated. I think now, because it's such a close call, I think I'm going to vote for it, but it is a very close call and, certainly, next time before you buy property, I think you ought to look at this before you buy it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That is a good recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signalling at this point, so I'll say a word or two, my point of view on this. I'm not sure I've ever seen any more exacting conditions of a conditional use, so that influences me and, also -- and I was going to use the term business model as well. It may not fit exactly into the charitable not-for-profit 5013C3 context, but I know what Commissioner Vernon means. I believe the model, the operational model for this church seems to be to get to a certain size and then to build another church. We've talked about the Naples Park, but I think there are several other branches, if you will, or facilities that house this church and so this would be in keeping with what they've done so far; which I think is probably a fairly decent indicator of what they might be doing in the future, so I too am going to be voting in favor of this under these circumstances, and unless anyone else wants to weigh in, I think it will be time to entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to throw out one more thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just trying to make a record. Another consideration that I'm giving is the staff has approved this, and I didn't want to go without -- that certainly factored into my decision. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good point. Commissioner Klucik. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 51 of 63 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say that Commissioner Fry and Vernon and Schmitt, I agree with everything they've said, and lest I snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I'm not going to say much more, which is not really my style, but I'm going to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You've been quiet today. I'm so impressed. I'm proud of you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your style is evolving before our very eyes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Robb, you were so quiet at the last meeting when you were on Zoom I was worried about you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The chair would entertain a motion at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to make a motion for approval of PL20190001333, that is the GMP amendment and the companion conditional use PL20190001326. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that subject to the revisions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the revisions as posted today. I do know they're very restrictive and, for the community, I would say that if they violate, the action is to inform your commissioner and code enforcement, so with those stipulations and the revised restrictions, I recommend approval. COMMISSIONER VERNON: As a second, if I can amend it, I think the chairman made two further restrictions which they said they'd agree to. That's included in your motion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're included in your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They're included in the second. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER FRY: I think one item really is that I guess I just want on the record. I guess I'm not sure why 2C is there, no outdoor services or activities. You have restricted the use of outdoor amplification, which I think is a noise issue for the neighbors. I'll just tell you that the churches I know that have done outside activities, they've been a blessing to the neighborhood if not they're not intrusive to the neighbors, so to me that's overkill, but I'm not sure -- I did not -- was not here at the other meeting. I don't know what the specific concerns that led to that offering. I find that unneeded for my approval, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other comments? If not, it's been moved and seconded to approve the small scale growth management plan amendment and the companion conditional use, subject to the conditions that were revised and put before us today and further subject to the two requests changes that I asked for, and were approved and agreed to by the applicant. All those in favor please say aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It passes five to two. Thank you very much. Thank you applicant and thank you members of the community. We need to talk about that, where we go. Planning Commission, it's ten minutes of 1:00. I had this fantasy this morning that we'd be able to get out of here by 1:30. I'm not sure that that's going to happen. But the -- but the question -- I saw David Weeks's presentation to the Naples City Council and it's fairly short, but it may invite questions and it could last longer than ten or 15 minutes. So I think -- what we need to consider is we need to take at least a five-or-ten-minute break if we're not going to have lunch. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 52 of 63 So is that the wish of the commission, plow forward and then we'll have lunch at our own time afterwards? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what we'll do. We'll stand in recess now until 1:00 p.m. That's nine minutes. (Whereupon, a recess commenced.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: This takes us -- we had an item of old business, 10A. MR. BOSI: Correct, as we discussed, the November 18th hearing is the hearing where we are going to have Bayshore LEC amendments and there are some use changes, so therefore, it requires a 5:05 hearing. There are two other items both related to the Bayshore Density Pool GMP amendment and then LDC amendment. Those are not restricted to 5:05. We can hear those before. My suggestion is we have a start time of 2:00 o'clock. We may not need that full three hours, but it would -- the time we needed, we could take a break until 5:05, get something to eat or whatever the case may be if we don't utilize the whole time and then we can go straight to the 5:05 matters. There was also another petition, there was a CCME related to sea level rise. We are proposing, and this would be part of the discussion, I believe, that Ned wanted to have with the Planning Commission, to move that item to December 2nd to allow for Dr. Savarese to have -- and Judith Hutchins (phonetic) to have a presentation on ACUNE sea level rise model prior to the Planning Commission hearing the item related to the CCME amendments on the 2nd, so I just wanted to provide the agreement that a 2:00 o'clock start time on the 18th with two petitions that can be heard before the 5:05 time and then one petition that would need to be heard at the 5:05 time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The model we're going to hear, is that -- that is privately developed model? Now, I understand, but is this a model they're trying to sell to the county, or is this a -- something that is -- I'm trying to understand what the purpose of the -- I understand the purpose of the presentation, let me be clear about that. But the model itself, is that something that they've developed independently and they're looking for the county to use it under some kind of a financial agreement or be compensated by the county? MR. BOSI: And I was -- it was Commissioner Fryer who had the interaction with Ms. Hutchins. I'm not sure what the intent was. That could be the case. One of the things that we are going to have to do is develop resiliency plans related to CCME amendment to the direction that's provided for us to deal with sea level rise. Utilizing a model would be one of the factors that would go into that development of that plan. We don't -- we're not going to suggest that we specify a model in the GMP amendment; we'll develop those plans after the adoption, so I'm not quite sure the extent other than maybe informational. I'm not sure if Mr. Fryer wanted to co-chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Let me, if I may, comment on that. I've had some -- this is going to be 11C, but let's just wrap it in and talk about it at the same time. This is ACUNE, and they have a model and a computer program that helps identify where trouble spots are likely to occur from the standpoint of water. And they are also, I believe, wanting to be engaged by the county to provide services, and in the latter case, of course, that's -- that's a role for county management. That's not something that the Planning Commission would do, but we may decide to make a recommendation and we may not. But I have seen this presentation from ACUNE and I have reason to believe that Commissioner Shea has also seen it. Commissioner Schmitt, I know, whether you've seen it or not, you're familiar with those issues -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and I would recommend that we hear from them on December 2nd and that we give them placement at the top of the agenda, because Professor Savarese has to break away and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 53 of 63 teach a class. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How does that model relate to the initiative? Because I spoke with the professor. How does that model relate to the ongoing issue with the county and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study, the coastal study? Because that was part of the issue of the study itself, which, as you know, when the made the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, the study will be completed and forwarded. Whether the county enters into an agreement to become the nonfederal sponsor is a different issue, but I believe this study was trying to promote an alternative approach, which is fine, a less obtrusive design or whatever, but I'm just kind of puzzled, other than information, which I think is -- I would love to see the model; I have no qualms about that. I just don't understand -- is there going to be any type of expectations of us to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. I don't think so. I've tried to make it clear that this is informational only. The conservancy -- rather, the League of Women Voters and Florida Gulf Coast University are sort of co-sponsoring this presentation. And I think it's worth seeing. I was enlightened by it. Commissioner Shea, your thoughts. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess all we have to go by right now is any kind of FEMA modeling you would know better. This is a much, much, much more sophisticated model that takes into account all kinds of different things that would affect flooding, whether it's internal, whether it's surge, whether it's extensive rainfall, and it's been demonstrated and supposedly calibrated against some of the previous storms, and the idea is that they would like the county, at least here, to consider using it versus some of the older FEMA less localized. That's what they're after, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the FEMA model, the data are what drive the maps, the flood maps. And then we, many years ago, hired a consultant as we disputed those maps. That went on for years. And I don't know, Jamie would probably have to clarify, but I think we're at like the third or fourth edition of that now. But we then have to go back to FEMA and convince FEMA to use the model to change their maps at our cost, of course. Just as we did with Tomasello Engineering. We went out and gathered the data and went back to FEMA and told them their data was not accurate and to use the data that we provided. Jamie. MR. FRENCH: For the record, Jamie French, deputy department head for growth management in the community development side of the house. I am -- Commissioner Shea, I'm a certified flood plan manager myself and I head the organization with regards to all of the flood plan determinations, what are the letter of map amendments, the letter of map revisions. Those are all done through our office. In fact, we've done better than probably ten or 12,000 of those for the citizens of Collier County at no charge. So we've helped people get out of flood zones, because those determinations that came forward to the county, we were able to work with local surveyors to make a determination that they were incorrect. Maps are updated on a regular basis and that's done through the federal agencies, typically through a third-party contractor. Could be AECOM or Michael Brown, and then they go through a series of review, public meetings and then we still use Tomasello and Associates as our third-party review engineering firm to affirm or to dispute those maps, and those are typically done within basins. We currently, as Commissioner Schmitt said, back under his leadership at the time, we still have some of those challenges ongoing better than ten years. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you basically are looking at historical data, I think the idea here is how do you superimpose sea level rise, getting a five-day rain storm like Houston had that just dumped rain for five days, all those different conditions and you're not actually using a model here, you're using historical data. MR. FRENCH: I believe what you're referring to is predictive modeling. And predictive modeling's a great tool when you're preparing for a storm or when you're planning into the future, there's that's doubt that as we look at our long-range planning, that we shouldn't take those into consideration; however, we would only ask what's the legal sufficiency of those models, because that's how we make decisions and we would defer to the county attorney's office and the great legal counsel that they 5.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 54 of 63 provide, but those are adopted by the federal registry, by our Congress, and those are the models we work off. That's best available data adopted at a federal level. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm not promoting this, believe me. I'm just -- MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. But for making land use determinations perhaps in the future, we would not -- we encourage it and -- because we certainly want to be great stewards of not just our environment, but of our community and future growth. But as far as that minimum code that we spoke about before, State of Florida is very clear they are a minimum code state, so here are the minimum requirements both within our development standards or within our building standards. And the Florida Building Code, the community rating system or your floodplain considerations that go into developing and construction, they were adopted back in the 2017 Florida Building Code. That's where it's -- that's actually where the enforcement provisions are for local government is in the building code it's the building official's responsibility. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Have you seen the model? They talk like they've spoken to somebody in the county -- MR. FRENCH: We've participated with Dr. Savarese and Dr. Cheng (phonetic) for some time now. In fact, Howard Crisfield (phonetic) is a professional engineer within our organization, as well as Chris Mason that head up or flood plan group. They participated since the start, as they started to kind of accumulate stakeholders and invite us into meetings, so we've provided them with a great deal, and I mean a great deal of light imaging detecting information, because we were one of the few counties that actually took the latest state flown Lidar and we got it down to just about three feet where we could zoom into it and we could actually see where water lies during wet season and where -- so you talk about predictability where water would go during storms. So we work very closely with them. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I think what's before us is to decide whether we want to hear from the League and Florida Gulf Coast University. They say that the presentation would be about 45 minutes, and I mean depending upon the number and complexity of questions that are asked, if any. I don't think there's any expectation that we would take any action at all. It's just to be informed as to the product that they have. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It is informative. I think the challenge is going to be is the codification of it; what do you do with it. So you've got this model and say everybody does buy into it and believe it, which is going to be a big hurdle to begin with, and then how codify it? What do you do with it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Actually, I guess we've got two things in front of us. First of all, we've got to decide on November 18th, 2:00 o'clock start and then come back at 5:05. Does that sound right to everybody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Then the ACUNE proposal as we have outlined it. Does that sound worthwhile to the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I -- I think it is worthwhile even if we don't do it in a formal meeting, that individuals see it, because we're going to see more with this resiliency going -- we, as a group, need to be more familiar with what's going on with sea level rise issues in the county, because it's going to start coming before us. I think the model points out some things and it helps educate us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody have a different viewpoint. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd like to see the presentation, but I won't be here that day. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That will be in December. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said November. CHAIRMAN FRYER: December 2nd for ACUNE. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd like to see it. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to see it, also. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sounds like we have a consensus that that's what we'd like to do, and as a courtesy of Dr. Savarese, we would schedule it first out of the box that day. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 55 of 63 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would only hope that we could put a cap on it even if we have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can certainly do that. We can -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Now while we're sober, if we can put a cap on it so that it doesn't, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, why don't we -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- take up too much of our time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: She said 45 minutes to an hour. Why don't we say an hour, but of course, if we as a Planning Commission want to grant more time, we can at the time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would give them 45 minutes and put an hour on our agenda so we have 15 minutes for questions or for them for running over. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. That's what we'll do. Okay, Mike? Thanks. Nothing further on that. We go to election of officers. And just to set the stage Collier County Ordinance Number 2009-29 Section 1 as amended provides that the Planning Commissioner officers' term shall be, quote, for one year with eligibility for reelection, unquote, and we typically go through this process every October. So here we are. Having said that, nominations are now open. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd liked to nominate reelection of the current slate of officers, which I believe is a tradition that the secretary make that motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further nomination? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Third. MR. EASTMAN: We have a fourth. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. So we'll close nominations and then we'll have a vote. All those in favor of reelecting the incumbents to their respective officerships, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Carried unanimously. From my perspective, I want to thank the planning commission very much for your vote of confidence and pledge to you that I will continue to try to do my level best in service of you. You're a great Planning Commission. Thank you very much. All right. That takes us to the redistricting presentation, which I had the privilege of watching our old friend, Mr. Weeks, provide to the Naples City Council. It's a good one, and it was relatively short; very informative and welcome, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Welcome back, David. Are you a new employee? MR. WEEKS: I am David Weeks. I am a certified land use planner. I have 35 years of planning and zoning experience, almost all of that in and for Collier County. I am the redistricting project manager for the County Commissioner and also the school board, because they have agreed to have coterminous boundaries. This is a team project. I'm certainly not doing this on my own. The assistants include Mr. Tom 5.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 56 of 63 Eastman and other members of the Collier County School Board staff. Johnson Engineering, also is a contracted firm with the county. The supervisor of elections office only providing technical information. They are not involved in the map drawing process. And the finally, the GIS staff at the county's growth management department. I also held this title for project manager for redistricting for 2011 and 2001 and Mr. Eastman, also, was part of the team in 2011. With that, I'll move right into the presentation, and I'll tell you, it's about seven or eight minutes, so it's not lengthy. I certainly want to be respectful of your time. So what is redistricting? Simply put, it's redrawing, in this case, the County Commission district boundaries for the purposes of correcting a population imbalance. It is something that is required by the Florida Constitution. It has to occur after each decennial census. Of course, we had the 2020 census just last year, and Florida Statutes allows for redistricting every odd numbered year, so we can go through this process as many as five times per decade if we so chose. Why do we need to redistrict? This chart helps to show that. The green bar represents what we call the ideal population. If we take the county population of 375,752 persons and equally distribute that amongst the five districts, we would get 75,150 persons per district. The gold colored bar, however, represents the actual population in each of the districts, thereby -- it shows us the imbalance that has occurred. By way of example, District 4 grew from 2010 to 2020 by 5.9 percent. That includes the City of Naples area. And District 5, which includes the Immokalee area, grew by 29.9 percent. Significant imbalance has resulted. This slide again is showing the population imbalance. If you look at the far right column in red, that is showing the actual number of population individuals that we need to shift to achieve the ideal population. However, the ideal population is not a requirement. We are, generally, allowed to deviate by up to ten percent, meaning up to five percent above and below that ideal population. I would note specifically here that District 1 is the only district that, based on population alone, could remain untouched. This is the map of the existing County Commission districts. And based upon the previous two slides, we see that Districts 2 and 4 need to expand; they need to gain population, districts 3 and 5, need to contract or lose population. And again, District 1 could theoretically remain as is. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could you just -- the tan squares, what's the distinction? MR. WEEKS: The tan colored here is Golden Gate Estates subdivision, and when we get to the criteria, I'm going to explain why that's relevant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Urban and rural together? MR. WEEKS: Yes. That's entirety of the Golden Gate Estates, including the south block below I-75 that's now owned by the State of Florida. That's the original Golden Gate Estates subdivision. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity, south of I-75 is now federal land. MR. WEEKS: It's state land. State of Florida. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: State land not eligible for development. MR. WEEKS: Correct. And you see on here five stars and five dots, those represent the residences of the existing County Commissioners and school board members. And on the next -- I think on the next slide I'll explain why that's relevant. So on June 22nd of this year the County Commissioner approved the redistricting criteria. They directed staff to initiate redistricting process and to draw at least three different map versions for consideration. And you can see criteria number three says keep the incumbent, both commissioners and school board members in their present district. So that previous slide that showed the map of their locations, when we draw the proposed maps for the board's consideration, we have to make sure that each of those ten members remain within their existing district. And here's the second group of four criteria, again, for a total of eight. The criteria number three 5.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 57 of 63 regarding incumbency is strictly a local decision. It is not a constitutional or statutory requirement in the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Weeks, do you want us to wait until you finish for questions or -- MR. WEEKS: I don't mind interrupting me any time, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I can understand in the case of the elected County Commissioners who run and are elected by their districts, District 4 commissioners are elected by District 4 voters, but I don't think that's the case, is it, with the school district. MR. WEEKS: It is not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So they run at large and to me, and maybe I'm just not seeing it clearly, but to me it makes less sense for them to be treated the same way as the folks who have to run within their district and subject themselves to the votes of that district only. MR. WEEKS: Well, interesting enough, I received a phone call from someone who is interested in running for the school board and they very much had concerns about the redistricting process and what would happen with, in their case, their specific residence, because they live in one district now, but under the proposed map alternatives, at least some of those, they would end up in a different district, and they were -- they were very much concerned about that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: These rules were set down by the BCC. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And these are the same criteria that the board approved for 2011 redistricting as well. We just carried those forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Makes your job more complicated, the fact that the elected officials both of the county government and the school district are sort of clustered on the western side of their respective districts. They don't live too far from one another, and it must have made it especially challenging for you and your colleagues. MR. WEEKS: We definitely had some challenges this time. Yes, sir. Let's see. Actually, I want to make a comment about criteria number one here about retrogressive effect. So even though Collier County does not have a majority minority district; that is, there's no County Commission district in which the majority, numerical, population is of a minority group. That does not exist. But nonetheless, staff had recommended to the commission and they continued to adopt this criteria. Now, District 5, again including the Immokalee area, that is the district by far with the largest minority population and by far, the largest minority population in Collier County is the Hispanic or Latino ethnic group. There is a built-in tension between these A criteria. In my view, it's probably impossible to equally satisfy all of those criteria. For example, we could draw the maps to be doggone close to being the ideal population evenly divided, but I believe it would be at the expense of one or more of the other criteria, such as following major boundaries, or maintaining a compact regular shape of the districts or not dividing communities of interest, such as Golden Gate Estates. And was referenced earlier, Golden Gate Estates was shown on that map and the reason for that is because the County Commission did approve a criteria that says try not to divide communities of interest such as Golden Gate Estates, so they specifically called that out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Weeks, one other thing that's relevant to the point you just made. I am looking at map number four. And in map number four, the Urban Estates, some of that would be seated to the Fourth District, which would, in effect, break up the Urban Estates into being represented by more than one district. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, a couple comments. First of all, you made reference to a proposed map. I don't believe the other commissioners have seen it unless they did that on their own accord. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's a matter of public record. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. No. No. I just wanted to get on the record. Some of the other commissioners might be wondering what are you talking about. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 58 of 63 The proposed maps have, in fact, been drawn. Board said a minimum of three. We actually drew five. Those are available on the county's website, so they're available for public viewing, as well as some associated population data. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you make a comment on my observation? MR. WEEKS: Oh, yes. Yes. So one of the criteria the board adopted was try not to divide Golden Gate Estates. Well, as a point of fact, right now it's divided amongst four districts. I believe what the commissioners were referring to what's east of Collier Boulevard, so the rural estates. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this is west of Collier that we're talking about. MR. WEEKS: Right. So west of Collier, the Estates is already divided amongst three districts. So that -- so to speak, that ship has sailed. It's already occurred. But some map versions may reduce that down, for example, to two districts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe I'm -- this is kind of a complicated map to read; they all are, but I mean, it's a complicated subject. It looks to me as though the Urban Estates fell almost completely in the third district with a little sliver going not fourth and now the fourth is going to get a bigger silver. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you put the map up on the screen? MR. WEEKS: Is that map four? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Four. Uh-huh. I realize none of these are being recommended; they're just being put out there for consideration by the BCC, but in this case a segment of the Urban Estates, that is to say, east of I-75, would be seated to the Fourth District. I realize the Fourth District need to acquire more numbers, and you can't get is a perfect solution that matches all the criteria, but I just wanted to point out that this particular one would be a compromising or loosening, if you will, of that objective which is to keep -- keep neighborhoods and units like, in this case, Golden Gate City together. MR. WEEKS: Right. And Mr. Chairman, I'll reiterate my opinion, and that is that the board's focus was on east of Collier Boulevard, because it was known that the population shift was going to require moving districts, at least District 3, possibly District 1 further to the east and possibly impacting Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I understand now. So the concern was not to avoid, at all costs, the splitting of the Urban Estates west of Collier. MR. WEEKS: I do not believe so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. EASTMAN: Also, I think that map, of all the maps that were drawn, deyonces (phonetic) the five districts to the closest number, if I'm not mistaken. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. EASTMAN: Which is another and, actually, the lead criteria. MR. WEEKS: Again, that balancing act. So if you take the time to look at the different map alternatives, you will see some where the population is closer to the equity or ideal, some that are farther. You'll see some that have shapes of the districts more compact, some less compact or regularly shaped or irregularly shaped. You'll see some that do and some that don't divide Golden Gate Estates east of Collier Boulevard. Again, the staff and the team in drawing these maps were taking all eight criteria -- really six in the map drawing process, criteria into account as we're drawing, and so there's going to be some plusses and minuses if you were to go down is a checklist of the criteria. The idea is to provide the board with multiple options to consider. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, I think it's -- I'm having trouble calling it up now, but I believe it's map five has the boundary of District 4, the southwestern boundary of District 4 extending down into an area that I didn't think was very populated. Would that really -- is that going to accomplish the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 59 of 63 objectives of adding more population to the fourth. MR. WEEKS: You're correct. It's District 5, it pushes District 1 boundary all the way down to the Broward and the Miami-Dade County lines. And no. It has minimal population growth. If you take Everglades City, Chokoloskee, Plantation Island, Copeland, all that area out to the county line, maybe 1,000. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm talking about the portion of the fourth, the southwestern extension of the fourth on map five, I believe it goes down to pick up a lot of area that I think is -- thought was largely uninhabited. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. There's Isles of Collier, Treviso Bay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is Isles of Collier picked up in there? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In that map you're looking at? MR. WEEKS: This is map five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're more familiar with that area. What would you say the population is, just out of curiosity? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's all Isles of Collier. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's other subdivisions in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I looked at Google Earth and it just didn't strike me as being very populous, but you guys are more familiar with it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's very populated now. MR. WEEKS: Back to the power point. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits purposeful discrimination and protects against what we call retrogression or the backsliding in the ability of a racial or language minority to elect its representatives of choice. And section two of the Voting Rights Act prohibits denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color or minority language status, including the opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Section two, further forbids creating election districts that improperly dilute minorities' voting power. And there's a couple of different tactics that are used to do that, to dilute the minority voting population. One is called cracking. That would be to take a district that has a minority population that's in the majority and dividing that district so that you put a lower number of that minority population in two respective districts. The opposite is called packing. It's cramming, so you might have two districts that currently have a majority population. You put most of that population into a single district, so they go from having theoretical control of electing a candidate in two districts down to one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Both political parties have been guilty of those over the centuries. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Now, I would point out something about the minority populations in Collier County. Some of the criteria here as to whether, in this case, Collier County should have drawn a district that would have a majority minority population. That could be accomplished. We can take parts of District 5, particularly the Immokalee area, which has the highest concentration of the Hispanic minority, we could have added Golden Gate City to that, so it could be done to achieve that minority majority. But from a Supreme Court case, there's three conditions that need to be met first of all. And then there's more to it than that, but to start with, one of those includes having a cohesive minority population from the standpoint of voting, and I don't think we have a slide on this power point, but there's a -- we have one that show that the Hispanic population is divided almost evenly between the republic, democratic and no party affiliation in Collier County, so there's clearly is no cohesiveness. I'm getting close to the end. Here's the timeline of the redistricting process. Because of the late release of census data this year, August instead of around March or so, roughly five months later, it's very much a compressed 5.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 60 of 63 schedule. Starting next month, November, we're going to have five public meetings. Here they are. One in each of the County Commission districts. All evening meetings. All open to the public regardless of where you reside. This is not intended to segregate the population by district. So for example, if you live in District 4 and want to attend the District 2 meeting, you're welcome to do so. At each of these meetings, staff will give a presentation including some of the information here before you today, but a lot more, and it will include walking through each of the five proposed map alternatives, and some of the population data that correlates with these maps. Wearing of masks at these public meetings are not required, but they are encouraged. Finally, here's my contact information. If people want more information, they can contact me through e-mail. Again, the website has the five map alternatives and associated data and we'll continue to be adding more data as we create it. Thank you for your time and I'll be glad to answer any further questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: David, so you have these public meetings, the public gets to see the five maps. Historically, how much input or how much impact does public feedback to the commissioners after that -- those public meetings do they have on deciding which map is selected? Does the public have a lot of weight in this? Do they have a lot of input that they provide? MR. WEEKS: Of course it's impossible for me to read the commissioners minds, if you will, but I will tell you by way of example that in 2011 there was one map version that was overwhelmingly disliked. I mean, probably 90 something percent of the public comments I received were, I don't like map so and so. And I can tell you when we got to the County Commission hearing, as we started this agenda item, the very first thing that was said by one of the commissioners was, I think we need to eliminate map so and so from consideration, and the board members all agreed to it and then focused on something else. So the short answer, I believe it does have some impact. I believe the commissioners do listen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: David, just for everyone's clarification, the board of County Commissioners is not limited to selecting one of these five maps. They can, in the open public meeting, change the map and do what they want. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Let me start with one extreme. One extreme would be the commissioners could say go back to the drawing board. Well, officially, they could did so. They have the legal authority to do that, but we are mandated by state law to adopt at new map this calendar year. The board's meeting is on December 14th, so that, as practical matter, there's just not time to accomplish that. But could the board look at those five maps and say, we really like map so and so, but we'd like to tweak it a little bit, can we make a shift here and there. Yes, they can and, in fact, they did that in 2011. It's really time constraint, and so we're going to make the effort to have this scheduled very early on the commission's agenda so that should the commission want to make some adjustments, that there is time for the team to go back and try to tweak the map and see if the numbers will still work. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask Mr. Eastman, are you an official representative of the school board on the redistricting board. MR. EASTMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. And what is the school district's position and, I guess, what input does the school district have and what impacts do you feel from the redistricting process? MR. EASTMAN: The school district is greatly appreciative of the county for taking on this project. The county has put far more resources in terms of staff, and money, and time and effort, and if the county wasn't doing that, the school -- and the school district couldn't participate in that project, the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 61 of 63 school district would have to do that all on its own. So we're very appreciative of the county and working in conjunction with the county and the supervisors of elections to get the job done and comply with the law. So we're part of the team that draws the various alternative maps that the BCC will discuss, and, also, our board will be, by resolution, reviewing, adopting and approving, hopefully, what the BCC does. And the reason that we would like to have co-terminus boundaries is that administratively, it's a savings for the supervisors of elections in terms of administering elections which also results in a savings to the taxpayer and it just makes things cleaner, easier, more efficient. So we've enjoyed working with the county over the years. They've been respectful of us; we've been respectful of them, and we see it as an efficient way to operate. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So could you end up just as they're working on the commissioners and the board members to try and keep them in the area; you could be having schools move from one area to another as well, right? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. And that does happen, and I think it's almost guaranteed to happen that particular elementary school X or whatever, can move from one district to another. That does happen. This, largely, is a mandate by statute and it -- for democratic reasons and it makes good sense when you think about it. It's just -- and really, the -- the county's leadership in this area has been great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Lower case D on democratic. MR. EASTMAN: Lower case D. Yes. And it's from -- from participation in this is, it's apolitical. It becomes like a math puzzle or whatever, given the criteria, and you stick to the criteria and produce the maps. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Eastman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. WEEKS: The school board member district boundaries, wherever they're located, however they get changed, that has no impact on your school zoning bill; is that correct? MR. EASTMAN: Absolutely. This is an entirely different exercise from, you know, school attendance boundaries. They're completely separate projects. You do use GIAS to accomplish these projects, which is a wonderful tool. There's similar factors to consider like not dividing neighborhoods. It would be kind of goofy to have two neighbors in the same neighborhood having them go to different middle schools or having them have different County Commissioners when they want to talk about a flood issue. So, you know -- and a lot of common sense is what really drives this process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: David, one question on the mechanics. Are the GAS tools you have today powerful enough to data mine and to go into various layers of data to almost instantaneously, if they decide to, you know, push a boundary left or right, to capture the needed data, the balance -- to show the balance or do you have to go back if they want to change something, I don't know, move it two miles east of Collier County -- Collier Boulevard, is that another two-day process to try and do all the mathematical computations to present a solution? MR. WEEKS: No. It's very quick. The GIS has the population layer right down to the census block level in just a matter of seconds or minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does it also have all the data ethnicity and -- you also have to have the registered voter's political party? Is that involved as well? MR. WEEKS: That is not, but the redistricting itself is done -- the actual proposed boundaries is based on total population. But when we examine analyze for retrogressive impacts to the minority population, we use voting age population. That information of total population, voting age, race, ethnicity, that's all within that GIS and it's really fast. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Political party as well? MR. WEEKS: No. That is not part of the data. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not relevant. MR. WEEKS: It's not relevant. Now, the elections office, of course, would have that information, but the GIS information that we use for the map drawing over in growth management department does 5.A.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 62 of 63 not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So this is not a substantial question; it's more along of a personal update. First of all, what is going on with your tie? I'm trying to figure out what -- what are we seeing there? MR. WEEKS: I think those are jaguars. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: And then, like when Mr. Bosi left, it was rather disappointing, it was a loss for the county when you left. We see you standing here today. I believe your -- you've come back to run this redistrict thing. Are you doing any other work with Collier County these days? MR. WEEKS: This probably takes up 97 or eight percent of my time and almost all of it. That was -- in my view, that was the chief reason for me being here. I'm also -- the plan here is that once redistricting is finished, and that will be in December, that I'll then take on a mentorship role. COMMISSIONER FRY: Very nice. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The county is very lucky. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Not to personally elevate myself, but one of the things that brought me back was discussions with the current county manager when he was talking about the restructuring, and one of the things that he told me that attracted me back to the position was Mr. French was going to come back and lead growth management, and that's something that I was very pleased with and obviously, it was something that, you know, allowed itself. And when I first met with Jamie after having -- and agreeing Mr. Isaacson to come back, I said one of the first things that I need, though, is I know we have the redistricting project coming back and so if I'm coming back, we're going to have to bring David back to bring the expertise and the professionalism and just the experience that he brings. So not only did I bring Mr. French back but Mr. Weeks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: David, mark on your calendar ten years from now, after serving time as planning commissioner, you can come back. MR. EASTMAN: David, how many more redistrictings do think you have in you? MR. WEEKS: Might depend on the advancement of walker -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French, did you wish to be heard, sir? MR. FRENCH: Very quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jamie French, the reassigned deputy department head for growth management. Proud to be here. Yeah. I do blame Mike for this. But happy to be back amongst -- not just serving the community, and I know I refer to the industry as customer or as a partner, because we do have is a statutory ability or we have a requirement to serve them, but we focus on good customer service, clearly, and communication, but also, you. This is a volunteer board, and we couldn't be more proud to have David back. And one of the things that we do, we look at -- you know, attrition is part of life. You think about it in your business life, where you've worked and how long you were there and any organization you may have worked with someone, but it's that -- it's that institutional knowledge, that attrition of institutional knowledge that I think sometimes by many organizations, that gets overlooked. And by -- and so you know, David and I worked on a plan before I have left the first time, and unfortunately, because of the rules of the Florida retirement system, David had to take a bit of a hiatus, but no sooner that I got back and got my feet underneath me and we got caught up on a lot of work, David was one of the first calls we made, and so we went back to the plan and the plan worked. But yes, sir, in the future -- and these are all great questions, but the intention is if David would have us, and we're not proposing at this point, but we'd certainly love to have David as long as he's willing to stay, because I was introduced to this, and working with David on this redistricting project, I was part of the team back in 2011 and I knew it was above me when it came back up, so I just wanted to compliment staff, and compliment you and really all your comments and the participation of the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) October 21, 2021 Page 63 of 63 community and the leadership that we've been given, so really appreciate it, appreciate really good comments and ask a lot of questions on these maps, because we're asking them internally as well, so thank you for that. And certainly, back at the house I like to say thanks to the staff, because it's really a wonderful team that I get to work with every day and I'm really blessed to be there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I think I can speak on behalf of the Planning Commission to express a word of sincere thanks and admiration on our part for all of the staff members that we have the privilege of working with regularly. We're very, very fortunate. And institutional knowledge is so important; expertise is so important, and just companion ability is important. And we feel like we have all of that with your excellent staff, so thanks to all. Let's see. Mr. Weeks, did you have anything further, sir? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Then we'll call for public comment here. Does any member of the Planning Commission wish to be heard before we see if any member of the public? I see there are a couple people still here. If not? Any member of the public wish to be heard on this matter? Apparently not. Thank you. Thank you very much for that very informative presentation, Mr. Weeks, and it's great to see you again. That takes us to agenda item number 12, which is, once again, public comment on any matter that has not come before us today. Seeing none, we'll move right to adjournment, and without objection, we stand adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ___________, as presented ________ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY JANE PETERSEN, RPR, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 10-21-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 1 of 56 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 4, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Karl Fry 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 5.A.b Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 2 of 56 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the November 4, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the secretary's absence, I will call the roll. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fry? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm here. Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have a quorum of five. Thank you. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on November 18, and I want to point out that that will happen in two sessions. The first session will start at 2:00 p.m., 2:00 in the afternoon, and then we have got an evening session that starts at 5:05 p.m. on November 18. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend either or both of these sessions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be at that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be traveling. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We hope to have at least four, possibly more. Our next meeting after that is December 2, 2021. And that's just a daytime meeting. Of course, same question, anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Still up in the air with me. Just for those who knew Phil Brougham, Phil Brougham was a long-standing member of the Planning Commission and has been involved with the county for several years on the parks committee. Passed away about a week-and-a-half ago; that's the day they're scheduling the celebration for life. So just -- I'll express our condolences to the family of the Brougham family. And so it's still questionable. I may come in and then leave shortly afterwards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Understood completely. And we'll have a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Brougham. (Moment of silence observed.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Approval of minutes. We have before us the minutes of October 7, our October 7, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 3 of 56 2021, meeting. Any corrections, changes, or addition to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They pass unanimously. Thank you. BCC report and recaps. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on October 26th the Board of County Commissioners heard the Estates Shopping Center PUD amendment and companion Growth Management Plan along with the service station distance waiver, and that was approved by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Taylor opposed. They also approved on their regular agenda the Randall Curve PUD and Growth Management Plan. That was 5-0 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. And then on the summary agenda there were two items, the Shoppes at Santa Barbara, that was a PUD amendment, and the Creekside PUD amendment. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director, as well as RCMA of Immokalee was approved as well as the Community School of Naples. It was a busy day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Busy day for the BCC. Okay. Thank you very much. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, nothing before us today on consent, which takes us right into public hearings advertised. ***The first matters are companions. They are PL20190002859. That's the 4111 Green Boulevard Tower CU, and its companion, PL20190000721, and that's the 4111 Green Boulevard Tower variance. Both are quasi-judicial. We'll hear them together and vote on them together unless the Commission, before voting, elects a division of the question. All persons wishing to testify, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission, starting with Mr. Eastman, please, sir. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Let's see. I've had email and communications with staff and material of public record. I've also done a site visit, took some photos there, and I visited another site, the property located near the intersection of Airport-Pulling and Poinciana where one of these monopine towers has already been erected. So I've seen one that's up and running. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing for me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing for me either. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Nothing. I just spoke with staff and looked at the agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We'll begin, then, with the applicant's presentation. Ms. Jahn, you may proceed. MS. JAHN: Good morning, Mattaniah Jahn, 935 Main Street, Suite D1, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. I have a PowerPoint presentation, so if you'll give me a moment to pull that up real quickly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 4 of 56 MS. JAHN: All right. Thank you for your patience. And, again, good morning. I'm Mattaniah Jahn, and I come before you today on behalf of SBA Towers 9, LLC, Verizon -- or T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to discuss a 147-foot-tall monopine style communication tower. I have taken an oath. I have in the chamber with me Maria Jimenez with Verizon Wireless should you have questions about Verizon's RF need. She has taken an oath as well. I also have in transit Mr. Patrick Keane from T-Mobile. He has not reached the building yet, but if he appears -- or if he's able to make it in time with traffic concerns, he will be available and we'll have him take an oath at that time. So I come before you today with staff recommendation of approval for a conditional use and variance to allow a 147-foot-tall monopine style communication tower at 411 [sic] Green Boulevard. The parent parcel is partially wooded land in Eagle's Meeting Hall and outbuildings. This is Property Appraiser aerial of the vicinity around the monopine. In this aerial, up is north. The yellow arrow points to the parent parcel in question. This is located at the fringe of the Urban Estates and north of Golden Gate City near the intersection of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard, two major roads. So the idea is to put it at the edge of lesser intense uses. This is a closer view. Again, the parcel that is in question is highlighted yellow, and I have an arrow here on it. So to the north is 15th Avenue Southwest. Then you have two FP&L substations. You can see those on the north end of our aerial. And then Urban Estates and commercial uses along Collier Boulevard. To the south is Green Boulevard, apartments and commercial uses. To the east are a post office, a medical services building, and then Collier Boulevard. To the west is a mixed-use developed parcel with a business on the southern end and a non-homesteaded residence on the north end. Urban Estates residential properties extend to the northwest as you move further away from the site. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just want to ask staff -- sorry for the interruption. Once again, the WiFi isn't working for me, as seems to be that's always how it is. So if we have someone on staff to assist me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that for Mr. Miller? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. Sorry for the interruption. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He'll be in here in a flash; he always is. Thank you. Please continue. MR. EASTMAN: What's the current use of the property, the subject property? MS. JAHN: The current property is used as an Eagle's Meeting Hall on the southern end, and then the northern end is undeveloped and is required to remain undeveloped pursuant to its provisional use, which you now call a conditional use, for the meeting hall. So that wooded area to the north will remain undeveloped. I apologize if I gave you a $5 answer for a $1 question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Where's the change? MS. JAHN: All right. As you heard, the property's located on the fringe of the Urban Estates in mixed uses. Mature natural vegetation exists on the parcel to the north. That's that area that's required to be preserved from the original provisional use, and then you'll notice that to the northwest the Urban Estates exists under dense urban canopy. The parent parcel is zoned Estates with a future land-use designation of Estates. In front is Green Boulevard, which is a major road. Communication towers are allowable via conditional use within the Estates on parcels that are 2.25 acres in size and front collector or arterial roads. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask someone from staff to just pop into Mr. Troy Miller's office and find out if he's able to assist Commissioner Klucik in getting electronic issues resolved? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we've -- MR. MILLER: IT is on their way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. IT on its way, Commissioner Klucik. Sorry, Ms. Jahn. MS. JAHN: So this is your zoning map, and this just shows that this is Estates zoned with a provisional use, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 5 of 56 which is what you now call a conditional use. And then this is your Future Land Use Map. This is Sheet Z1.1 from the plans that you have on record. The monopole is located near the south center portion of the lot on its eastern side. And when you're looking at that map, they depicted it sideways because engineers do that. They're trying to fit it into the sheet. So in this aerial, to the right is north. You can see the -- can you see my mouse? All right. So this right here is where the monopine will be located. This purple arc is your standard residential separation of 2.5 times tower height. This is what is creating the variance. And then there's another arc to the south. That is a nonresidential separation variance. We are requesting that one to maximize separation from the Estates-zoned parcel to the west. MR. EASTMAN: Do you know the distance from the proposed tower to the edge of that house? MS. JAHN: Yes. It is 242 feet, 1.6 times tower height. So variances like these, and particularly the western one, I would respectfully submit are to be expected as you move into tower development in the Estates. When you look at the general platting of your parcels in the Estates, they can't -- when you look from side to side, because they're generally these rectangle parcels, they can't meet the separations. We are not requesting any other variances from your code. We meet the tower code and the Estates code and all requirements. We also meet the required separations to the south and the northwest. So this is the -- this is Sheet Z3 from the plans, and you can see the elevation on the right. And when I say a monopine, I'm describing a type of communication tower that has a single support pole with no guy wires or ironworks extending out from it. The monopine is engineered with an oversized support pole or trunk so that way it can support pre- engineered foliated branches that are mounted on the monopine. The branches extend from the treeline to the top of the monopole creating a canopy, and these branches are able to sway in the breeze. They have foliage on them. The branches are brown, the foliage is green, the support pole is brown to emulate a trunk, and then all cabling is located within the monopine itself. The antennas are mounted on headframes that are nestled into the canopy at the top, and then, as necessary, they'll be covered with socks, so that way they actually have foliage on them as well. There is an existing example of this actually constructed by SBA, which is the company that is proposing this tower, at the Wilson Professional Center off of Airport-Pulling Road. All right. I'm going to move through simulations. This is just Sheet Z1. This just runs through the photo simulations now. We're going to go clockwise from the northwest -- or from the northeast around to the northwest. So this is the view from south -- 15th Avenue Southwest and Collier Boulevard. The existing view is on the left, and the proposed view is on the right. You can see the monopine. The canopy is visible. The base is not. And you can see at this distance it scales down to objects that are in the viewshed, such as the power pole off to the right and the lamp post that -- I mean, off to the left, and the lamp post that's off to the left as well. And you can also see that vegetation in the midground along Collier Boulevard would be able to predominantly buffer the monopine. This is the view from the intersection of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. Again, you can see that the canopy extends up so that way it is continuous from the treeline. You can see from a bulk perspective its scaling down to similar bulk sides which you would see with that traffic light. Scale is getting similar to the power pole that you're seeing on the right-hand side. And you can also see that vegetation in the foreground, such as tree on the left-hand side, would be able to completely buffer it at these distances. This is the view from Green Boulevard and Maiden (phonetic), and this is what I was talking about with the urban canopy that's in the area. You can see that the visibility, the viewsheds get cut down very quickly, and here you cannot see the monopine at all. Last is a view from 15th Avenue Southwest, and you can see that there is visibility here where there's breaks in the trees; otherwise, you're fully buffered from 15th Avenue. And then also keep in mind that I don't have sightlines from the building there, but it has a very close tree canopy as well. So you can see the monopine will be located down near the shed, and you have tree canopy that runs very close to here. Down here is the nonresidential use that's on that parcel. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 6 of 56 All right. Moving on to RF need. And I'm going to present Mr. Keane's RF package since he's not here at the moment. The monopine will be designed to support up to four carriers. It's a little -- it's a little unusual outside of Collier County for me to come before a jurisdiction with two initial carriers, but I do have T-Mobile at the top. They dictate the height because it's their RF need. And then I have Verizon collocating immediately below this. Modern communication towers serve two functions. They fill gaps in coverage, and they offload capacity strain, and that's important because even if you had strong coverage, if you can't connect to the tower, you don't have service. And the FCC actually weighed in on that on Order 18-133 at Paragraphs 37 through 40 saying that a significant gap, which is something that's protected under federal law, can arise from a lack of capacity. Here we have both, the lack of coverage and a lack of capacity. All right. So this is T-Mobile's existing coverage map from the RF package that you have on file. And in this map, up is north. And you can see that there's three colors on there, a red, a yellow, and a green; and these represent different coverage strengths. So green is reliable indoors, yellow is reliable in vehicle, and red is unreliable even outdoors. So you can see, as you extend into the Urban Estates, they just have unreliable coverage, period. You'll also see on this map some different colored dots. The purple one is the proposed monopine. There are two green dots down in Golden Gate City. One is in the flagpole in the Señor Tequila parking lot, and the other one is a flagpole located at one of your fire stations. T-Mobile is collocated on those two towers. There are two additional towers that are further away, a very short one in a plaza off on the western side, and then one down on a golf course property. If you'll notice, those towers are physically further away than the existing towers that already can't reach that far. And this arrow just points to the proposed tower. You can see the two that T-Mobile's collocated on with the orange arrows. This is a streets map. Again, up is north. It correlates -- yes. MR. EASTMAN: Do you have a similar map -- if you could back up one slide, please. Do you have a similar map, if this were approved, what your coverages would look like with that, good, average, poor, if this were installed? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. That is -- I will be getting to that. I'll go ahead and skip to that. So this is the handoff towers just showing the neighboring towers. You can see that right now T-Mobile's trying to service this area with two towers in Golden Gate City that are .85 five to a mile and a half away and then the other towers that are trying to serve the area are four miles away, and they currently cannot reach the Urban Estates. And then those are the two additional towers that are further south away from our target area. All right. This is a map -- when I was talking about capacity, that's something that's hard to map. So the best way that T-Mobile has to do that, unless they just show you graphs, which -- is to take and show a map like this. And what it does is it shows census data that they've imported with population density, and then a block representing the closest area to the monopine where it will absorb the most capacity traffic. Remember, there's two parts to this: Coverage in the Urban Estates; absorbing traffic from Golden Gate City, which makes the existing towers work better. And when you are on the left, Figure C, that is the current proposed location, and at that point the monopine is able to serve over 11,000 people. You can see that on the right in the lower-hand corner. And just the plotted two example properties to the north, just -- they picked nonresidential properties just to show what the capacity offload would be like. That's Figures D and E. And you can see that the number of people served drops very quickly to 3,600 people and then 2,400 people that are served. And then here's the coverage that is -- that will be provided after the monopine is brought online. So as you can see, reliable indoor coverage extends far north of Pine Ridge Road. You can also see that reliable in-vehicle coverage extends further than that, and then you can see that the unreliable coverage is severely decreased, so... All right. I'm going to take and present Verizon's materials as well since I'm going to shorten the actual presentation, instead of running you through a longer one, but I will have Ms. Jimenez come up so that way she's available should you have any questions for her. Hey, Patrick. I'm sorry. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 7 of 56 Before I bring Ms. Jimenez up, Mr. Keane did walk in. He can take an oath. Do you have any questions for Patrick Keane? He's sitting here. Would you please stand real quick for the Commission. This is Patrick Keane. And if you have any questions for T-Mobile, he is available right here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: You spoke about the -- it's basically a fake pine tree. And what's the maintenance on that? How long does that last? Obviously, stuff like that would maybe blow down in a hurricane, but just how soon do you have to replenish those fake limbs and so on and so forth? MS. JAHN: So I don't have the exact replacement schedule. It is a long lifespan. So the monopine that is at Wilson Professional Center we constructed in, I want to say, 2016. MR. EASTMAN: And it still looks good. MS. JAHN: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: I've seen it within the last week. MS. JAHN: And that's having had multiple hurricanes and tropical storms pass through the area so, as you can see, they're pretty resilient. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to follow up on that, if I may. Were you finished? MR. EASTMAN: I was going to ask if you'd be amenable to a condition that you would keep it maintained, you know, in the event that you're approved. MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. SBA would be amenable to such a condition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very close to the question I was going to ask. Is there a regular review or inspection on these, just as a matter of business policy? MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn, again. Yes. So SBA, like any sizable tower company, has a facilities maintenance department that goes around and ensures that for painted towers the painting's maintained. For foliated towers, camouflage towers like this, they're in good shape. There are still towers that they have in their inventory that have flagpoles, so you have to do things like make sure the lights work, and the flag -- the American flag's not getting torn, things like that. So they do have a department with infrastructure for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So in other words, they -- they'll go out there once every, whatever; once every month, once every quarter, something like that; they have a schedule, rather than needing to be called by someone? MS. JAHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, since we're talking about aesthetics, what's the determining factor to say I want it to look like a pine tree versus a palm tree versus a flagpole? I mean, are there height limitations? If you wanted to make it a flag pole, is it too high? I'm just curious as to what was the motivating factor for the pine tree versus some other entity -- other, I guess -- MS. JAHN: So particularly with a flagpole style communication tower -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. JAHN: -- the problem is physics. So modern antennas -- and if you'd like, I can have Mr. Keane come up and discuss these antennas. But they're roughly eight feet tall -- they're com scope antennas -- by 24 inches wide by, like, 10 inches deep, and that's not including the mounting. So when you take and try to fit that into the canisters that they have to be put in, certain models just don't fit the units that they use. The other problem that happens is that these antennas require top-end equipment, things like remote radio units, and those also have to be placed inside the canisters. And then you have to have airflow which unipole canisters do not provide. Older antennas did not need active airflow. So you would be able to replicate this. If you stuck your WiFi router inside your attic, you would cook it. That's what happens to this equipment. Finally, when you look at these deployments, they are three -- they are typically three to four antennas per 5.A.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 8 of 56 side. So there are -- for each level, T-Mobile will have nine antennas starting off with. You can fit one antenna per side in a unipole canister, and you can design the unipole canister -- a unipole with four to six canisters total. So let's say that you converted this to a flagpole and you were able to fit the antennas inside it. You would then take up four of the upwards of six canisters with just T-Mobile, and you haven't even gotten to Verizon yet, and you haven't gotten to any future co-locators yet, so now you're going to be sparking the need for additional future towers. You're sparking it now with Verizon. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess, I just heard the easy answer is the flagpole, everything's internal. There's no -- nothing actually externally mounted. Here you've got the capability to mount the external antennas that are camouflaged by the -- by the -- I guess, the fake foliage. So I guess that's the simple answer. Did I just -- MS. JAHN: The simple answer is antennas don't fit, and they cook. MR. EASTMAN: And collocation. With the pine tree you get greater collocation so we can have fewer towers. MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. JAHN: All right. I'm going to run through Verizon real quick. So this is Verizon's RF package, and they're going to be immediately below. This is their current coverage. And you can see that it pretty much corresponds to what T-Mobile has. They're on the same towers to the north. This is our proposed tower with the purple arrow, and then you can see the orange arrows are Verizon's collocating towers. Green is reliable outdoor service. So we're not talking in-vehicle or indoor like you have with T-Mobile. This is just does your phone work if you step outside and try to make a call. And then red is unreliable. So you're looking at not just layers of gap; you're looking at just the bottom line absolute gap. If you were to show in-vehicle or indoor coverage, these green areas would shrink down. This is a map of their hand-off towers. Again, this corresponds to what you saw. So up is north. This corresponds to the RF coverage map that you saw. And you can see that Verizon is on the golf course tower down in the Golden Gates Estates -- I'm sorry -- Golden Gate City. And then you can see the other towers that are down there. The Señor Tequila tower and the fire station tower are the two green arrows to the left, and then you have one off screen, which is the very short tower in the shopping plaza. And then this is the proposed coverage. If you'd like, I can have Ms. Jimenez speak on the -- their collocation down in Golden Gate City and on the two flagpole towers why they cannot use them. You're going to run into the same situation where the antennas do not fit. But I do have her here, and she has taken her oath. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I was just wondering -- you have -- you mentioned that -- I think you mentioned it, but I also read it in the material that there's no -- there's really no viable place that you could do a tall tower that would meet the requirement and not have to have the variance for the height. MS. JAHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. As part of that process of site location, did you consider, you know, several towers of shorter height? I mean, did you actually seriously consider that? So towers that would not need a variance, you know, that could be placed -- you know, same kind of thing -- monopine where it's, you know, unobtrusive and probably not all that objectionable but shorter? MS. JAHN: So I can bring my RF engineers up, but by the time you get a tower down to the height that meets your separation requirements given the platting size -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Because of the narrowness of the lots? MS. JAHN: Correct -- I'm going to need to go off streets that are -- I wouldn't be able to put towers in compliance with your code because I'm limited to arterials and collectors, and then I'm putting several towers instead of one. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So you're bumping up against a restriction either way, and the issue 5.A.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 9 of 56 is do you resolve it by what variance. If we're going to approve something, which kind of variances are we going to grant, either the height variance or the variance of usage. MS. JAHN: Correct. So I will defer. MR. BOSI: And just for clarification, Mike Bosi, Zoning director. We do not have use variances in the county, so we only have -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For zoning change. MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. So you either do a zoning change, which probably would even cause more furor, or you do a variance and, obviously, I guess, if you're right next to this property -- I have no idea if the people that are, you know, neighboring -- I'm sure they'll speak if they are -- someone will let us know how opposed they are to this. But that's the choice we have, I guess, as commissioners. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further at this time, Ms. Jahn? MS. JAHN: Since you do have a full agenda, I could run through the variance and conditional-use factors if you'd like but, otherwise, in the interest of time, I will defer to your expert staff's analysis finding compliance with your Land Development Code and also defer to the project narratives that I have put in the record as substantial evidence of compliance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling at this point, so I'll ask a couple of questions or make a comment or two, if I may. First of all, with respect to the 3-foot shortening from 150 to 147, it's my understanding that that brought about or obviated the need for lighting; is that correct? MS. JAHN: It does, and it also obviated a very small variance to the northwest. So we are able to adjust the tower's location and height and reduce its presence in the area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. My second question has to do with what is the expression -- I don't know if it's fall radius or what, but I know that it's calculated, and the engineers up here can also help me out. But if a wind were to cause the tower to fall, it's designed to fall in a certain way and not to extend beyond a certain radius. Could you say a little more about that, and then also tell me specifically what studies were done and by whom and what the findings were with respect to this tower in relation to the neighbors to the east and west. MS. JAHN: All right. So to begin with, the monopine's designed with a 40-foot-fall-zone radius. That is committed to on the plans, and you also have a sign and sealed fall-zone letter in the record. This is proven technology. If you'd like, I can pull the document camera up and show a picture of a tower that had been hit by Hurricane Michael and actually bended over upon itself, and it was all in one piece, just bent over because of the hurricane. That's fall-zone technology in action. The federal government has also used it on interstate lamp posts for years. When I was a child coming down I-75 with my father after Hurricane, gosh, Charley, I'm sorry, we reached the King's Highway exit in Charlotte County, and you could see all the lamp posts were folded over each other because Charley went up the Peace River valley. That's fall-zone technology in action protecting the interstate lanes from the lamp posts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So am I correct -- and this is a layperson's mental image -- that maybe there is an intentional weakening at a certain point on the tower so that that's where it would collapse on itself? MS. JAHN: Correct. There's a pre-engineered crimp point, and then after that it's just a question of levers, because once you make the monopole shorter, it's stronger than the wind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm doing some diligence here, or we are, because of potential safety issues, so that's why I'm asking these questions. And what you're saying is that this is -- this is not a new technology. It's been around for a while, and it's been proven in relation to hurricanes and probably other natural disasters, so it's something that's reasonable for us to rely upon that's safe; is that correct? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Eastman -- Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Really, it's just one house that falls within your radius, correct? MS. JAHN: There is one house. There's a property next to it that technically is within the radius as well, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 10 of 56 sir. MR. EASTMAN: What's the purpose of the radius? What's the policy of setting the radius? With this variance, what risk are we potentially taking here? MS. JAHN: So I don't know if -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's a staff question. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. The original telecommunication amendments to the LDC establish separation requirements, and it was a recognition of, you know, making sure that residential properties were -- were provided adequate buffering from the locations of towers. So two-and-a-half times the height of the tower was the number that was selected. I don't know the specific science behind that number of why they arrived upon that, but that's what's been in the code for as long as I've been here for the last 20 years, and I think since '96 when it was enacted. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wasn't that more aesthetically based than physically? Now with the new break technology, the danger zone is a lot shorter from fall. MR. BOSI: I am 100 percent that it's more about aesthetics than it is about safety of the tower falling. Towers don't fall and bounce, and it's more about aesthetics. MR. EASTMAN: And we have three concerns, I think. It's the fall radius, it's the aesthetics, and it's also the RF. And -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can't consider that -- MR. BOSI: Environmental -- environmental health concerns are not allowed to be utilized as a reason for denial of a tower. The 1996 Federal Communication Act has clearly stated that you cannot use health effects as a reason for denial of a telecommunication tower. MR. EASTMAN: And I apologize, because we at the school district do consider that, but we're not the zoning authority like the county is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Also it's -- I think it's a balance test that drives the edict from the federal government that we can't consider RF and radiation and the like, because so many people -- 80-something percent of people in many areas, including this one, rely exclusively on their cell phones to call 911, so it's really an essential service. MR. EASTMAN: Yeah. And, I mean, RF from radio towers, which are much more powerful, have been around for many, many years across the globe. And it's my understanding that there's been no epidemiology study that shows a risk from a more powerful radio tower. MS. JAHN: That's my understanding as well. I can have my RF engineers tell you that -- I grew up in radio stations, for what it's worth. My mentor actually took -- and when she was pregnant, she was working at the base of cell towers on site walks and stuff like that for whatever that anecdotal experience is. MR. EASTMAN: And the purpose of my question is not to stir up scare. It's the opposite of that; it's to provide comfort for the safety of it. So that's -- I think it's somewhat worthwhile to talk about a little bit. MR. KLATZKOW: But it's not relevant for this discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand what you're saying, Tom, and if I was designing school buildings, I would think the way you do, but for this particular body it's not a consideration. MR. EASTMAN: Fair enough. I'll discontinue all that question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn again. If you would like, I could have my RF engineers testify that they maintain -- their carriers maintain their deployments in compliance with FCC safety federal regulations, if you would like. That is the one question that you can ask. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we're pretty satisfied with the presentation you've made -- MS. JAHN: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- the signals I'm getting from the Planning Commission. Anything further? MS. JAHN: And just to follow up on the observation you made, Chair Fryer. My -- the application file includes statistics from your Sheriff's Office showing that in your 2017/2018 year -- so that was quite a bit 5.A.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 11 of 56 ago now -- we are at 80 percent of 911 calls received by the Collier County Sheriff's Office came from wireless numbers, so -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's staggering. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: A lot of people don't have landlines anymore. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. And just for clarification, the Land Development Code does classify any telecommunication tower that provides E911 service as an essential service, and all carriers are required by their FCC license to provide E911 service. So all telecommunications towers are considered essential services, and it's directly related to the abandonment of landlines and the need for public health, safety, welfare related to being able to access emergency services. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else, Ms. Jahn? MS. JAHN: I would ask you to keep in mind that when your original code was written, it was in the early '90s, and that was before you even allowed communication towers in the Estates. So it was written for -- it was written before we even had the rise of modern wireless telephony, before we started using these devices as a piece of our everyday infrastructure and before we were trying to specifically serve the Estates area. MR. KLATZKOW: It was written when you had towers with guylines -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: -- coming out from them. And you may want to consider changing your code on this, because -- we've had this discussion, Mike and I, over the years. I don't know that your present code really mirrors what's going on in the industry right now. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think it does. I think it's something we really need to change and look at -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- soon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jahn, you'll have an opportunity for rebuttal if, when the time comes, there's anything further you need to say. MS. JAHN: Understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Now we'll hear from staff, if we may. I know I have a couple of questions, mostly for the record. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning manager with Zoning Services. I am presenting this petition for our contract planner, Laura DeJohn. I worked with her on this. And, as noted in your staff report, we have found this conditional use consistent with the conditional use criteria as outlined in the Land Development Code, and it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. We are recommending approval of the conditional use as presented along with the companion variance as we find that it meets the variance criteria. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to ask you also to confirm, as we heard from the applicant's representative, the safety of the -- well, the state of the technology and the safety that has gone into assuring that when the towers do fall that they fall upon themselves so that we as a Planning Commission don't have any concerns with the representation from staff that the way these are constructed that if it's got a 40-foot fall zone, that that is reliable almost under any conceivable circumstance; is that a fair statement? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. That is my understanding. They're engineered, and the documentations that are presented to the Building Department when these things are erected show that they meet those hurricane standards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Ray, is it still part of the code that the tower companies have to get these inspected by an engineer for structural integrity every -- periodically? MR. BOSI: I believe it's every three years. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 12 of 56 MR. EASTMAN: That's still in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other planning commissioners wish to be heard on this? No one is signaling at this point. Anything further from staff? MR. BELLOWS: No other -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Youngblood, what do we have from the public? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker online. Robert Argenta. Mr. Argenta, are you with us, sir? You're being prompted to unmute your microphone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Argenta, are you there, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any other speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any other registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we have anyone here in person who has not registered but wishes to be heard? Now would be the time. Please raise your hand if you fall into that category. And I don't see any hands raised. So with that, we will close the public comment portion of this hearing. Naturally, we as Planning Commissions can always ask for anybody else to come up and speak at any time, but as far as the public is concerned, seeing no further interest in speaking, we will close public comment. And at this point, unless the Planning Commission -- anybody wants to be heard at this time, Ms. Jahn, I don't know that there's anything for you to rebut, but if you want to have a last word, it's yours. MS. JAHN: No. Thank you for your time with patience on my presentation, so -- and, again, I and my RF engineers are available for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. With that, we will enter our deliberation, and who would like to be heard first? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No? I'll say a word here. I think that much has been done recently to produce more aesthetically pleasing or less aesthetically offensive communications towers. They are an essential service, as we've heard, and it's clear that steps have been taken to make them more visually appealing, which I appreciate. And so I don't have any misgivings at this point about voting in favor of the application, both of them and would want to -- Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Going back to that commitment for maintenance and making it part of the approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that should be part of the -- when a motion is made, we want to make that a part of it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would support the same feelings you have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. At this point it would be appropriate to have a motion to approve. And we've got both the CU and the VA in front of us. We can act on them together unless the Planning Commission wishes a division of the question. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve both. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Both? With the condition that Mr. Eastman raised? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 13 of 56 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Let's see. We've got time to start the next matter. So without objection, we will. ***And that is Ave Maria. And this is PL2020002317, the Ave Maria SRA. All persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Mr. Eastman, please. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Pardon me. I'm looking for mine. In my case, staff materials, materials of record, communications with the applicant, and communications with staff as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I also spoke to Mr. Yovanovich concerning this petition. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I actually have completed Form 8B, and I have handed it to our court reporter, and I would like that entered into the record. And that is a form that there's a conflict that I have, and so I have submitted that. I would -- my understanding is that since I'm an appointed officer, I am able to participate in all the deliberations; I am not able to vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. And -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Does that prevent us from voting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Mr. County Attorney, is everything sufficient in that regard? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry. I was talking with Nancy. I did not hear. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The 8B form. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, the 8B form is fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it's my understanding that Commissioner Klucik will be permitted to be heard, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: My recommendation is if you're going to stand down, you stand down and you leave the room. Now -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: May I continue, sir? Technically you are allowed to sit up there and participate. I think that's a terrible idea. You're subjecting yourself to criticism, and my counsel of all these years is if you're conflicted on something, just walk away from it. But you don't have to. I just think it's more prudent to do it that way. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I certainly appreciate what you're saying, and I certainly don't discount it. I have thought about that, and I'm -- I am going to participate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Let's see. Anything further before we proceed? If not, Mr. Arnold, you have the floor, sir. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates. And with me this morning is Christopher Wright. He's with Peninsula. I'm sorry. Chris Scott, I'm sorry, with Peninsula Engineering; and Rich Yovanovich, our counsel on the matter. We're here representing Ave Maria Development, and we're proposing a number of changes, some of which are cleanup. We're also inserting a new dwelling unit type, and probably most importantly for some of you is that we're withdrawing the deviation we had requested related to the buffering. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That was, indeed, important to me, and I was glad to learn of that yesterday. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. We decided that its application was going to be so narrow that it just didn't make sense to pursue the deviation that staff wasn't supporting, and we had some -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did not know that. Is that something that we should have been -- well, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 14 of 56 I'm not going to delay the petition, but staff never sent out an email informing us of -- MR. BOSI: I was just informed a second ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schmitt, we -- after you and I had our meeting, we had further discussions internally where it was worth pursuing, and we made the decision last evening or yesterday afternoon. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's good. Thanks. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was nothing to do with your staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks, Rich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I completely respect Commissioner Klucik's decision, although the record has been made about our County Attorney's recommendation and advice. My question, Commissioner, is, with the -- and I -- obviously, we haven't discussed, so I don't know what your concerns are, and I expect I may find out today. But if your concern was only Deviation 3, that might remove your feeling of need to participate in this. I'm just testing the water. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And Deviation 3 was what? And you said you've withdrawn it? MR. ARNOLD: It was related to the buffers between different subdivisions. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That is probably the one thing that I would be weighing in on, you know, where I have a strong opinion, just based on the feedback that I've gotten from people in the community. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That -- well, again, the County Attorney's indicated the decision is yours, but it might -- you might consider it a little bit cleaner to absent yourself or at least if you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: In a way I feel like I owe it to the -- you know, to my community to be here, especially if any questions come up that I can, you know, fill in. But I understand that there's reasons to urge me to not participate, but I also feel I'm complying with the law by being here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to consider that. I understand your position. All right. Mr. Arnold, please continue. MR. ARNOLD: So on the visualizer you have a location exhibit. This affects all of Ave Maria. And as you can see that to the south is Oil Well Road, to the far east is Camp Keais Road, and there are portions of this related to both. And as I mentioned, we're making changes to reconfiguration of one of the town centers that's located near Camp Keais Road and Pope John Paul. So we've highlighted a couple of changes. On the top part of the visualizer is the existing town center that's near Camp Keais Road and Pope John Paul. It is adjacent to a neighborhood center, and to the right of the screen is a new access that we're showing that's technically outside Ave Maria, but it's a maintenance road for the golf course. So in a little bit more detail, this is how we're reconfiguring the town center. It's right now currently all along Pope John Paul. We're shrinking it along Pope John Paul and opening up a window for the neighborhood general. There's no net change in the acreage of that neighborhood center, and there's no development adjacent to it. And then on the south you can see we've ghosted in the maintenance road that goes only to the Del Webb golf maintenance facility. We were asked to depict that, so we are now depicting that on the master plan. This is a little more closeup image of the change to that town center, 2A. And you can see that no net change in acreage but reconfigured to allow a window opening for the neighborhood general that will be residential. This, again, is the access road that's to Oil Well Road but only serving to the golf maintenance center. It's not a through road. It will not become an access point for the general public to Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Can I just ask the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So the SRA isn't changing on this slide. That's just a change in the map so that it's depicted so that -- just for awareness? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 15 of 56 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: So the next request is a minor change in Town Center 1. There's not a specific reference that there can be certain common open spaces within the neighborhood center, so we're adding a reference to that. I think -- it's innocuous but it's odd; it doesn't make any provisions for outdoor courtyards and things, and that town center probably will have some outdoor areas for the pedestrians to gather. Another change we're making is something that's kind of an obscure part of the code because unless you deal directly with the university and the core of the university, these grid lines don't really mean much. But there are -- these are not to-scale drawings anyway, but there are dimensions associated with them on the approved exhibit on the left. We're changing the grid line exhibit to reference in reality what they were established to be. They're surveyed points out in the university. So when we work on the university campus, for instance, we have to adhere to grid-line setbacks, and they're lines that are surveyed lines. You know, they're not depictions of anything that you can see physically. But the strong orientation of the university and the church were related to these grid lines. So we're cleaning up something that was a scrivener's error from the very initial submittal of the SRA. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: First of all, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So I think what I'm hearing you saying is there was a unique orientation and the grid lines never meshed with that and now they're going to? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: This simply puts in place -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It has to do with the oratory's orientation? MR. ARNOLD: It does. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. The other change that's depicted on this slide is to change the root protection standards. Your Land Development Code has been amended over the years to have root protections standards for trees that are different than the standards we have in Ave Maria. We're asking to simply be subject to the Land Development Code root barrier protection standards. It's something that it's just a little different, and I think where your code is today is a more appropriate use of root protection standards than are in the old SRA document. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wayne, what precipitated this requirement years ago? Was there -- of course, there are concerns of root damage or what -- tree roots can cause damage, uplift sidewalks, streets? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I live in Fiddler's Creek. We have some problems there after 20 years, 25 years. I just can't remember what -- why this particular point was added. Was there a concern 20 years ago that as the trees became mature that it was going to be causing damage, so they required the root guards or root barriers? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know, Mr. Schmitt, the original intent for that. But your code -- we knew there were going to be a series of street trees in Ave Maria, and you didn't have street trees, necessarily, prescribed throughout the rest of Collier County, so there were root protection standards that were written. You've since now added those standards to your Land Development Code, and we simply would just like to be subject to those same standards. It's easier for maintenance. It's easier for installation for contractors to deal with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What are the standards in the code? I didn't look it up. MR. ARNOLD: I can find that code standard, and we can -- if I can come back to it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because that's -- I mean, obviously, there was a concern, because that's why it was added, and I have no problem if that's -- there's no objection from the community, and they remove this requirement. The requirement is then -- it falls to the LDC requirements, which is fine. I just don't know if there -- if there's a problem today. I guess we will wait to hear from the public if they seem to think 5.A.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 16 of 56 this is a problem. MR. ARNOLD: And we will try to find the Land Development Code provision and read it for you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. And on that point, I guess what I would say -- you know, I just know, you know, on the street in front of my house, which is Ave Maria Boulevard, the district out there owns those sidewalks, and we've spent a lot of money replacing sidewalks due to root problems. And so, you know, my -- and I know we have the problem in my HOA on a -- you know, on one of the smaller streets that people are starting to be concerned about. And so, of course, my reaction -- you know, my question with staff was okay, well, what does this mean? And they said, well, it's just adopting, you know, the root barrier standard. I do think that it's a less robust standard, I guess, is maybe a way to describe it, and so to that end, I'm just scratching my head saying, why would we be advocating -- you know, why would even you as the petitioner be advocating to have a lesser standard when we already have problems with the standard that we're using? And if it's not a lesser standard, that's fine. That's why I think it's a good discussion to have. I just -- as a logical -- you know, it's a very rational question that anyone would have who's had this issue, you know, near their home. Why would we say we want to have a lesser standard when we have problems -- when we've supposedly been using -- you know, I'm assuming everyone has been following, you know, the standard that's in the code, and if we're following that and having problems, why are we changing it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there -- the one -- the issues you cite, all -- the root barriers are in now for those years that were constructed, the root barriers -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I'm nodding my head. That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the root barriers are in. Those are there. This is only for new construction? MR. ARNOLD: This would apply going forward, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Going forward, okay. MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to move on, and we'll try to find that language and come back to it. So one of the other requests we have is to insert a new dwelling unit type. And this is a cottage court. And this, essentially, is a horizontal rental, if some of you have seen some of the newer versions of rental communities. I don't think you have any constructed currently in Collier County. I'm working on one in Lee County currently, and this is a large trend in a lot of our communities. It offers an alternative to having a four-story apartment building where you can have actual attached and detached rentals, if you will. So you end up almost an independent living space so you don't have somebody living above you and maybe nobody even next to you. But in some cases, as we've depicted on this exhibit, there could be an attached unit. There could be a detached unit, and they're not for sale. These are commonly owned properties. And we've added development standards for those with basically separations and setbacks from the perimeters. And then this is kind of a larger depiction of what a community like that can look like. And you end up with common parking in the community. They're designed to be adjacent to courtyards and open space areas. But, again, it's an alternate to homeownership in an area that would allow you to have your own physical space as opposed to common space above and below you in many cases. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you assume that the majority or maybe the vast majority of occupancies of these would be on a rental basis? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Because of their size? MR. ARNOLD: Well, not just because of their size. We've written standard so that it has to be a commonly owned unit. The cottage court product itself is a common ownership. It wouldn't be individually owned cottages, for instance. You and I couldn't purchase one, but you and I could rent one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see. Okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Again, reflecting that we've deleted Deviation 3. And as Mr. Yovanovich indicated, we 5.A.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 17 of 56 made that decision very late in the afternoon yesterday that we would just drop that rather than pursue something staff wasn't supporting and that we didn't feel that there was community support for it as well. So with that, that's, in a nutshell, our presentation. Chris, I don't know if you were able to find the root barrier standard. Do you want to read that into the record? Okay. I'll let Chris show you that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to also want staff to weigh in on the same question. But go ahead, sir. Identify yourself and then proceed. Have you been sworn in? MR. SCOTT: Yes. For the record, Chris Scott, planning manager with Peninsula Engineering. In regards to the discussion regarding the changes to the root barrier standards, it's really twofold. One, to be consistent with the county's requirements. The Ave Maria standards include root barrier requirements for small trees which typically don't have the root issues that damage sidewalks. The county LDC does not -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I interrupt? MR. SCOTT: Certainly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: When you say "small trees," trees that are expected to remain small? MR. SCOTT: Yes. The county -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If you plant a small live oak -- if you plant a small live oak, do you still have to have the root barrier knowing that it's going to get big? MR. SCOTT: When I say "small tree," I mean at maturity. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Got it. Thank you. MR. SCOTT: Those would be, like, the ornamental trees that would have some root barrier protections. The county standard specifically identifies barrier standards for large shade trees such as the live oaks. Their actual requirements are a little bit more stringent than what are currently in the Ave Maria as far as if you're within 10 foot of a sidewalk you would need a root barrier. I believe Ave Maria's is currently, if you're within 15 feet, you would need the root barrier. So it becomes a little more strict as it relates to the large shade tree root barriers, but it eliminates the areas where you would not necessarily need a root barrier because of the root systems of the small ornamental trees. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you go -- like, that distinction that you just mentioned where it's more strict -- so you're saying the county standard is less stringent than the current Ave Maria standard, the SRA that we're changing, for when you get to the larger trees? MR. SCOTT: No. For the larger trees, the county standard is more stringent. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is more stringent? MR. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So there's nothing -- the only distinction where it would say there's less restriction or less of an imposition or less of a requirement is as to the smaller trees? MR. SCOTT: That is correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So smaller trees where there really, probably, is not a problem, we had a -- we have a standard now, and we would be eliminating that because the county standard doesn't require that. Okay. So -- and I know, like -- I'm just going to say, like, this makes me feel very comfortable with it, so, you know, I'm -- not time for deliberation now, but -- so I'll let you go on. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will, without objection, ask staff if they can also weigh in on the following question: Is staff satisfied that the entire universe of large trees, canopy trees, live oaks, and the like, are still going to require a root barrier? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. And, yes, the current code, as -- it's 4.06.05.H.2.a within the Land Development Code specifically says, you know, in terms of when large trees are planted closer to 15 feet to a building or within 10 feet of sidewalk, underground utilities, they all require to have a root barrier. And the applicant is correct, there is no requirement for small trees to have root barriers within the current Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we say "small trees" and "large trees"; that is a vernacular but not a scientific term. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 18 of 56 MR. BOSI: They are defined by our Land Development Code. MR. ARNOLD: I think they're defined as 20-foot spread, and they're considered canopy trees that require those barriers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But you're satisfied that there's not going to be an increase in root problems in Ave Maria if they go to the standard that the rest of the unincorporated county follows? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: We have nothing further. I'm happy to answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any questions from the dais? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, sir. We will now turn to staff's presentation, please. And it looks like that will be given by Mrs. Gundlach. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning division, for the record. And staff is recommending approval of the Ave Maria SRA. We do have two clarifications we'd like to make. And the first one is in our staff report. We discussed the 10-foot side, rear, and front yard setbacks for the proposed cottage courts. There is actually an internal setback of five feet from a driveway, from an internal driveway as well for the cottage courts. And this came to our attention this week as we were diving in deeper. The common open space courtyards state that the courtyards shall be -- shall -- may -- they may include sidewalks, pathways, benches, trellises, and similar amenities. "May" is a word that means nothing. It's not required. So we are respectfully requesting that that word "may" be changed to "shall." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Does the applicant have any objection to that? MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, again. The only thing that we would probably add to that is some clarification because, when it says "shall," the sentence reads, includes sidewalks, pathways, and -- it says sidewalks, pathways, benches, trellises, and similar amenities. I think there needs to be some clarification that we're not -- we're not "shall" requiring all of those. So I think it might be more clear to say that it shall include -- MR. KLATZKOW: It needs to be "may." How many benches are we talking about? How many sidewalks are we talking about? How many this? How many that? I mean, if you think "may" is vague, "shall" is even vaguer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I was going to say the same thing. MR. ARNOLD: But I think we understand that we need to require those, but do we require all of those, I guess, is the clarification I would make. And I -- if it needs to be clarified, we're amenable to modifying the language. If it doesn't, it stands as written. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, Ms. Gundlach, what -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Bosi wants to weigh in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: I wanted to provide a clarification for what staff is trying to attain. What we are trying to ensure is there's a pathway from the parking spot within the internal courtyard of the cottage court to the individual units. We wouldn't want them to have to walk from their parking space through grass to their front door. And I would expect that the developer would not be against providing a pathway from an individual's parking spot to their front door, and that's what we're trying to attain. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: We tried to -- what Mr. Arnold and I and our team worked on yesterday was that very concept. We will make sure there are pathways. Our concern was you were going to tell us we were going to have to have a bench, a trellis, and similar amenities in every courtyard. That was our concern. So we don't have a problem with pathways. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Staff, is the language sufficient as-is, or do we need to modify the language? MR. BOSI: The language that Mr. Yovanovich presented, which we've just seen now, this -- that is exactly 5.A.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 19 of 56 what we're trying to do. We want to require that the sidewalks and/or pathway be provided. The benches, amenity trellis, similar amenities, those are ones we're comfortable with a "may." CHAIRMAN FRYER: So will that language find its way into the ordinance without our needing to add a condition, or should we add a condition? MR. BOSI: I would say the -- if you would make a -- if you were to make a motion for approval, I would say modification to the suggested language as presented by the applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would include it in the SRA document which is adopted by resolution, not by ordinance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it, thank you. So it looks like belt and suspenders if we -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm fine with that language. It clarifies it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. No one else is signaling at this point. Any -- Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I was just wondering, regarding landscaping, what are the landscaping requirements? I know we talked about buffers, but are there tree requirements or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same requirements. Per the existing SRA, right? MR. ARNOLD: Well, it is per the SRA. So the buffers would have vegetation in them, and then internal to the courtyard we still have to provide landscape islands with regard to the parking areas, just like any other apartment complex would. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further from staff? MR. BOSI: None. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Youngblood, do we have members of the public who wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker, Robert Argenta, who actually registered for this item, not the first item. So that was my mistake. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, no problem. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Argenta, are you with us, sir? You're being prompted to unmute your microphone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Argenta, are you there, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll have to pass on him. Any other registered speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I do not have any registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any members of the public in the room who have not registered but nonetheless wish to be heard in this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see no hands raised, so without objection, we will close the public comment portion of the hearing and proceed to deliberation. I mean, there's nothing to rebut, correct? You don't need a rebuttal? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir; no rebuttal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you going to do a motion to approve? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Discussion -- deliberation from the Planning Commission, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would make a motion to approve as amended using the language as just proffered for the definition of the requirements within the rental area -- the cottage area. Other than that, I would recommend approval as presented subject to the petitioner removing the -- was that Condition 3 -- Deviation 3, sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Deviation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Further discussion from the Planning Commission? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 20 of 56 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So what's before us is the SRAA, the amendment, with the language that's been proffered, the common open space courtyard that's on our screen, that would be included in the ordinance. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: With my abstention. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Abstention noted. Thank you. All right. It's quarter after 10:00. This would be a logical time for our midmorning break, unless there's an objection from the dais. If not, we will take a break until 10:30. (A brief recess was had from 10:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. ***The fourth matter today is PL20200000115. It's the Lord's Way -- Lord's Way large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. It's before us on transmittal. It's not accompanied by a PUDA at this time. We'll see that for the first time at our adoption hearing. And since the GMPA by itself is legislative in nature, we can dispense with the need to swear in witnesses and to make ex parte disclosures. Mr. Yovanovich, you have the floor, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's still good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. David Torres is the applicant's representative, and then you have myself, Paula McMichael, and Norm Trebilcock to present this item. I'll do a brief overview, but we're all available to answer any questions you may have regarding the proposed request. The request is to do a Growth Management Plan amendment on approximately 69-acre parcel of property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, which you can see, and north of Lord's Way. If you're familiar with the property, there's an existing apartment complex on the rear portion of the property. That apartment complex included an essential service personnel housing commitment as part of those 296 units as well as income restrictions on a certain portion of those 147 units that were to be set aside for essential service personnel. On the front portion of the property, you have an existing church that I think it's fair to say has struggled with many different churches in that building over the past many years that that church has been there. It looks like an incomplete project when you drive by it, and I think what the property was originally envisioned to be was a 2,000-seat church, 200-seat chapel. It included certain institutional uses such as a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation center for 269 beds. It also allowed for daycare, and it had a private school use. That was a vision of Reverend Mallory who was in Collier County and had that vision to occur on this property. That vision did not come to fruition. So the property has basically been sitting there for the past several years, and Mr. Torres, who you're all familiar with, is the developer of Hacienda Lakes and has been acquiring other properties in this area and has a different vision for the property as we move forward. The property, the subdistrict, is surrounded by Urban Residential Fringe under your Future Land Use Map. Urban Residential Fringe, as you know, is -- to be candid with you, I don't know why it's still in our Comprehensive Plan. When it was originally adopted, it was intended to be a transition from the urban area to rural area, but we came up with Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, and basically the landscape, if you will, has changed. And you've seen several petitions come before you because this is really in the urban area on a 5.A.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 21 of 56 major roadway to come back to the more typical urban densities that you would find in the urban area, and that's why you have seen several subdistricts come forward within this district. I already mentioned the existing uses and the existing apartment complex that is on the eastern portion of the property. The property has a PUD on it. You will see the changes to the PUD at your -- hopefully at the adoption hearing for the Growth Management Plan amendment as well as the PUD amendment. But, essentially, what we're doing is we're eliminating those institutional uses that could occur on the property and replacing them with residential uses, another 384 dwelling units on the front end of that property. As part of the neighborhood information meeting, we committed to the additional dwelling units being for-sale product, not rental multifamily units. We're in a little bit of a dilemma because, at the time we made that commitment at the neighborhood information meeting, we were not advised that we were going to receive a staff report that now wants to have a condition that we provide more affordable housing related to these additional units. So, candidly, if an affordability requirement is going to be imposed upon us for these additional 384 units, we're going to have to do a multifamily rental project because the affordable housing process is a 30-year commitment, and I don't think there is a market for for-sale product where the buyer who buys the unit, for the next 30 years, is committed to a limit universe of who they could sell the house to should they have a reason to sell the house. So we're going to have to go back and have another neighborhood information meeting to tell the residents that the commitment we made to for-sale product is no longer a commitment, and we will -- frankly, we're already working to schedule another neighborhood information meeting before the Board of County Commissioners considers this at transmittal. I want to, as part of this process -- some of you are new to the Planning Commission. East Naples has historically been the recipient of affordable housing projects throughout the years. And the former commissioner in that district -- and I'm sure Mr. Schmitt remembers this from his days as an administrator here, and I know Ms. Homiak is aware of all of the several projects that have come through in East Naples. And your Comprehensive Plan -- I'm going to switch over to the visualizer, assuming Ray will help me -- specifically provides that we're to avoid the concentration of affordable housing units in specific areas of Collier County. We're not -- and the Board has recently, and you have also, as the Planning Commission, started to spread out affordable housing as it relates to density increases related to Growth Management Plan amendments. You did it for I think it's Blue Coral; I think that's the name of the project that was up on Immokalee Road. They came in asking for 25 units per acre on a 10-acre parcel, and in order to get that, they agreed to provide a certain percentage of those units at an income restriction. The Board, at the adoption hearing for Randall Curve, required 40 of the 400 units to be set aside at a certain income threshold. So it's starting to -- in order to get densities above the current Comprehensive Plan, the Board is starting to require income restriction related to those density increases. You just recently changed the village requirements and the town requirements out in the Rural Land Stewardship Area to require set-asides for income-restricted property. So it's starting to be spread out away from and not only in East Naples. If you look at East Naples, just near this project, you have several projects that are income restricted in the lower income thresholds. You have Regal Acres and Charlie Estates and Trail Ridge. Those are projects that are being developed by Habitat for Humanities; very important organization serving a very important need. You have Victoria Falls, you have Whistler's Cove, which is an apartment complex, that also is affordable housing, and then you have the Naples Manor community itself that has historically been at price points that service people with -- who need reasonably priced housing. So we think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commercial Klucik, please. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. Where is your project on this map? I mean, I realize it's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's, like, right -- the scale's horrible, so I may be off by a little bit, but we're right about there. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 22 of 56 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And your purpose in showing this -- I realize you're showing us where the existing income-restricted housing is? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is because there's a concentration, in our opinion, of more and more housing in this southeast portion of -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're encouraging us to say, well, why would we add more here when there's already so much in close proximity? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. The rationale for why we're not going to agree to the condition of including more affordable housing within this project, one, we already have some, and I don't think that the community in this area would like to see more of it. And I'm just explaining the rationale for why we don't think it's an appropriate request related to our particular project. And we think that by converting the uses that are on this property today that are the only uses that could be developed are not uses that the community would like to see happen on the property, and I think the community would like to see this project completed with for-sale residential on the property and probably not more rental on this particular piece of property, because that would be 690 cumulative rental units on the property. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then I would just -- Mr. Chairman, when we talk to staff on this particular issue, to just -- you know, the genesis of adding the condition, I believe, is that -- or the recommendation that staff is adding is because it's the staff's understanding that that's a desire of the commissioners or even the Planning Commission and -- but I would like to kind of talk about that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I think you will find when staff speaks that that is exactly the case. When you want the density that is being requested, there needs to be something in it either for affordable housing or perhaps mixed use. I mean, there are other ways of accomplishing it, but it's -- I think the density that is driving -- the density request is driving the need for something more to go along with the application that benefits the county. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, there's existing commitments for affordable housing that you don't want to change. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not changing those. We can't. It's already built. MR. EASTMAN: Right, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That apartment complex is built and operating and meeting those conditions. MR. EASTMAN: Okay, okay. So it's only the new that you want to be free from the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: In follow-up to that then, so am I right, then, that you could have put another little orange box where that is that's in your property? MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't even -- we didn't even include on this projects that had, you know, 10 percent of the units set aside for affordability. I could have put in -- and, frankly, if we go back to the master plan, you will see that that apartment complex that's on the east end of this development, that would qualify as income -- an income-restricted community, because it is income restricted for essential service personnel. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So I guess I need -- you know, I would like to understand, it would be helpful to know exactly what -- what is required now, so you already have a -- you know, this restriction, excuse me, this affordable housing. The issue is, is in order to get more density, generally speaking, you know, the commissioners will require that you -- you know, that you add -- that we have something -- you know, you're trading it for something or there's some consideration that makes it seems like, you know, there's a value to the community. I understand -- I'm not saying that's my view. I'm saying that that seems to be, you know, how it's framed. And so right now you have a certain amount of affordable housing, and what would be the difference between what we're asking for to add to it and what we have now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't -- yes. Historically, recent history, has been an affordability or an income restriction requirement when you're asking for increases in densities. There have also been past instances where the Board of County Commissioners recognized that prior approved uses really are not the 5.A.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 23 of 56 uses you want to see on the property so that converting to a different use like residential was appropriate without a requirement to include income restriction. This project -- and I'll give you the numbers. We have a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just -- and while you're doing that, just -- and if you can tell me the genesis of how we got to the point where we're at now with the affordable housing that we have now. Was that just, you know, out of the good nature, you know, of the prior developers, or was that something that was also imposed for a density? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was within the original subdistrict as this project was going forward. It included these apartments with income restrictions on it and then the church and those other uses. It was part of the original concept -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That was what the original owner wanted to do? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was part of the original concept. In the 296 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you still answering his question, because Commissioner Schmitt -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. He wanted to know what was on the property today, and I was about to give him those numbers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's 296 apartments approved. Of those, 147 must be offered initially to essential service personnel. Of those, 35 of the 147 are income restricted to people making less than 150 percent of the median income. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not 150. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 150? MR. YOVANOVICH: And then the other 25 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a different number. MR. YOVANOVICH: The other -- the other 25 are 80 percent or less. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So there's a high concentration, it looks to me, already, of what we would consider affordable housing or set-aside housing for -- I guess, for the benefit of the community to ensure we have housing for the people that are, you know, doing a lot of the work here that otherwise couldn't afford to be in the community. So -- and I'm trying to understand -- balance this, because I see that as an issue, and I'm sure we'll all talk about that. You know, do we want to have an even higher concentration of that? If we're going to increase the density, do we want to, you know, have more of that or not? And, obviously, that's a discussion we'll have. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we will and it was -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And your petition -- your client is not -- is resisting that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm reacting to a commitment that was put in the staff report. No hint of that commitment when I'm making other commitments at a neighborhood information meeting to provide for-sale product versus rental, and now I've got to undo a commitment that was made at the neighborhood information meeting and say, sorry, we're going to go to a rental project because there is now going to be a commitment that a portion of those units be set aside for an income-restricted category. And we don't -- we think that there is a need for people who are in these apartment complexes that are coming up and down Collier Boulevard to move to for-sale product. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did the discussion come up when -- you know, it seems like that would be a logical discussion, hey, we're putting this petition forward. Are we going to -- you know, we're asking for more density. Are we likely to -- you know, are you guys likely to recommend that we have a, you know, additional, you know, affordable housing or restricted housing? MR. YOVANOVICH: The first hint I had that there was going to be -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no. My question was real specific. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And I'm telling you, no, it didn't come up. And the first hint I had of it was when I got a staff report. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 24 of 56 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And all I'm saying is that it's -- that you know the environment that we're in, so it's not necessarily a surprise, but it wasn't something that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know -- Commissioner Klucik, I know going forward based upon the trend in other areas of Collier County, when I come in with a Comprehensive Plan amendment to go above the base density that I can get, I will advise my clients, expect an affordable housing commitment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I say that as -- you know, I've only been on this panel for a year, and to me -- I get it. You've been doing this for a long time. To me it's just like, yeah, we all know that that's going to be part of the discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: We know that now based upon recent -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, it's new. I get it. I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: I always joke, if I could predict the future, I would make sure I picked the six right numbers on the Power Ball, and that's the numbers that I would predict the future on. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would tell you -- would you believe me if I told you that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- that you're really good, and you serve your clients really well, and that I understand, if you had thought that that was going to be an issue, you definitely would have been thinking it. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no question we would have been having a conversation, and my client wouldn't have been shocked by this. And I never would have made the commitment at the NIM to do for-sale product. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for my colleagues up here, this -- Rich went over it rather quickly, but this area and this PUD has gone through a significant evolution over 20 years. The affordable housing which is shown here on the eastern portion of the property, that was added through a significant effort by the developer to bring that forward to the county. I was part of the staff at that time. And I recall that there were several requirements when this was built. The developer at that time, Bill Klohn, I believe was the one that developed some of this or most of it at that time. And right now how many -- how many units are affordable? They're all -- these are all rentals that are there right now? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is a rental -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rental. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- apartment complex. As you remember, David actually fulfilled the vision of providing the essential service personnel -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and the units. It was someone else's vision. He acquired it, and we have 167 units set aside for ESP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did David end up building this, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You finished it, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: He built it. David Torres built it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A little history, but wasn't it started -- Bill Klohn started this -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He did, I think, the church. MR. EASTMAN: Yes. Bill was involved, and there was also a state grant for $5 million that led to this project. So your recollection is exactly right, Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My next question is, are -- all the other financial ties all been resolved? The grants? Because they were impact fee deferrals. There were all sorts of things associated with this project when it was first proposed. Bill went under. Now I remember that. So -- but the bottom line is, this -- there is -- there are 47 units now that are deemed affordable, and they still are affordable? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, they're income restricted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Income restricted. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And there's actually 60 units -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 25 of 56 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sixty units. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that have an income restriction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because some of them were set aside also for essential service personnel, if I remember. MR. YOVANOVICH: One hundred forty-seven were set aside to be marketed to essential service personnel. Within that category of the essential service personnel, 60 of them I'm income restricted at different income categories. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just to explain, if you built for-sale units instead of for-rent and there was the affordable housing component, it becomes far more difficult for an owner, say, five years later to say now I want to sell this, because it's still -- there's still a requirement to sell it to another person to meet the same restrictions. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a 30 -- under the current code, it's a 30-year commitment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thirty-year commitment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-year commitment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, whereas, when Habitat for Humanity builds, many of the ones that you showed originally on your -- there are many other ways that Habitat controls that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second deeds -- or second mortgages. All the other kind of things that they do. Now, whether -- I won't get into whether or not they're enforced, but that's a different story. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the issue here becomes that if there's an affordable housing component, it becomes -- you're forced into making pretty much a rental project rather than a for-purchase project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A fee simple type project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it could be fee simple, but it would still be rental. It wouldn't be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no, because remember if it's fee simple, the person who owns it and occupies it has to meet the income threshold. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Has to meet the income requirement as well, okay. So -- but the bottom line is, the site already has an affordable housing component. I'll wait to hear from staff, because my -- I'm curious, just for staff -- and I don't know who's going to be presenting this, but what is the motivating factor for staff to require additional affordable housing? And just for the history, Mr. Yovanovich is absolutely correct there's been a long history of discussion about the concentration of affordable housing in East Naples, whatever you want to define as East Naples. But just for the term "East Naples," it's always been a source of contention. A lot of reasons for it going back maybe 15, 20 years when this was the last area of the county to be developed, but prior to that, the land was far less -- or more affordable, far less expensive than other areas of the county, which became, really, the motivating factor for -- to draw affordable housing, even for Habitat for Humanity, because it became affordable for them to go out and purchase property. Now, just along Collier Boulevard, there are also already rental projects existing and being built right now; is there not? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And there's -- look, there's a market for plenty more rental. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rental, right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we'll -- you know, if we have to do rental, we'll do rental. But it's the -- at the NIM we were asked to do for-sale on this piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And Sapphire Cove is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, that's a for-sale project. It's part of Hacienda, right? David, it's part of Hacienda? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is Hacienda built yet? MR. TORRES: It's a separate PUD. It's the Lord's Way 30 PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the Lord's Way, but it's a different PUD. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 26 of 56 MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, correct. MR. TORRES: It's a different PUD. It's for-sale homes, single-family. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the future -- I guess, whatever happens in the future with the Florida Sports Park is yet to be determined, but that's certainly another opportunity for growth and development down in that area. Probably the last areas in the rural fringe. MR. YOVANOVICH: As you know, there's -- another thing you would think you would want to do is you have very little acreage left -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- in the urban area. You would think based upon the fact that we're on Collier Boulevard, that's a six-lane road, has sufficient capacity to serve that, you'd want to fill in the urban area first before we start going further to the east, and we believe that this is an appropriate infill on basically an urban piece of property. And that's our request. It's a conversion of uses that I don't think people really want to see happen on that property anymore, and we think it's a beneficial -- for-sale is a beneficial use of this property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Finished, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. For now, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, I worked with Bill Klohn as the school district's representative, in trying to get the state grant and trying to get this project off the ground. I want to thank you for pointing out the inconsistency between the staff requirement and what you had said at the NIM. I also want to thank Mr. Torres for building this out and giving those opportunities to the essential service workers. When we were discussing this, the essential service workers said they didn't want to have a teacher town. They wanted it to be more diverse. And also the issue came up of, you know, for-sale properties with affordable, and that was -- that's a much more difficult row to hoe. So I agree with what you've stated. I agree with what Commissioner Schmitt has stated and also with concentration of affordable housing in East Naples expressed concern multiple times by Donna Fiala and other residents of that community over and over again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. And I apologize if you already laid this out and I just wasn't following along. So I'm looking at Page -- in my packet it's 1724. It's an overlay with a bunch of yellow. It shows, I think, the current uses and, like, it has the wetlands off. It has, you know, some crosshatching. And it's a drawing by Passarella Associates, or a rendering. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'll do my best. My print copy doesn't have your pages on it. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: My question is, so right now there's a certain density, and it's based on the whole plat, and it's assuming that there's that religious use off to the left. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what you're doing is you're saying, well, we're not going to -- it's not going to be religious use now. We'd like to use that now for residential, and because the density that was assigned to it assumed that we weren't going to be having housing there, we need to change the density to accommodate this new use? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. What -- yes. And, obviously, I didn't do a very good job of laying that out. The current subdistrict -- there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment that had to go in place in the first place to get to the number of residential units that were approved at 296, because this land was in the Urban Residential Fringe. And in the Urban Residential Fringe, when this was approved, the density was 1.5 units per acre, not the four units per acre everywhere else in the urban area, but 1.5. So, mathematically, at 69 units -- 69 acres, you couldn't get to 296, so we did -- they did a subdistrict, like I'm doing today. I'm amending that subdistrict -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to get that number of units, plus the church, plus the drug and alcohol in-patient 5.A.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 27 of 56 rehabilitation use, plus daycare, plus a private school. All of that required a Growth Management Plan amendment in the first place, and then the PUD implemented the Growth Management Plan. We're saying take all of that off the table and replace it with for-sale 384 units, and we left in the ability to do senior housing, but everything else -- the church would go away after five years, and the drug and -- in-patient drug and alcohol rehab would go away, and all those other uses. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Let's assume that it stays how it is, you know, there's no change, and then they're able to build whatever is allowed and whatever they want to build. Where would all the housing that -- the entitlements that they have now, where would they be going? Am I right to assume that they wouldn't be to the western edge of the -- it would all be on the eastern half of the property or no? So you have the eastern half and the western half of the property, and there's that, you know, kind of like a road that goes between them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. This is an FPL easement that goes through here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But am I right to think that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is is basically, Commissioner Klucik, that's what's left for all those uses that currently are allowed to occur on. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So right now you could build right where the church parking lot is, or whatever, if you wanted to? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where I'm sure Reverend Mallory anticipated he would expand that into a 2,000-seat church. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But the idea was there wasn't to be housing there or -- but there could have been? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. No, never could have housing. We could only have a -- we could only have -- when I say "residential," there was the ability to have in-patient "spend the night" drug and rehabilitation center. I think it was 269 beds. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: My whole point is, conceptually, not legally, whatever, what you're really doing is you're saying, well, we're now going to take this area where the church and the parking is, and that was never going to be housing as we understand it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And now we want to use it that way because, for whatever -- for 20 years this project has been floundering, and it would be a benefit to the community to not have it be this unfinished project, and we need a density change to allow us to use that now in a different -- you know, in the way we're proposing; is that accurate? MR. YOVANOVICH: Perfect summary. Perfect summary. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And to that extent, the idea that we're adding more affordable housing, in light of the high concentration that's already there, I think, you know, in my mind, the broader picture and the goals that we all have that we're trying to, you know, keep in mind, yeah, I certainly understand why staff would understand that we would always like them to highlight this affordable housing requirement because there's a density increase request but, for a lot of reasons, I'm of the mindset to think that -- you know, I agree, we don't want to have a high concentration in one area. We all kind of know that's exactly what we don't want. The public policy goals are to not have a concentration of low-income housing or affordable housing because there are problems associated with that that are not associated when it's intermixed throughout a community, and I think -- my mind right now, I'm kind of thinking along those lines that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I understand why staff put it in there. I mean, they've watched what's happened in the last several petitions. You know, I'm not shocked by that being in the report. I just can't -- I can't do it -- once I made the commitment to for-sale product, I could not implement the -- you know, the condition and -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't even tell me what I need to do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm just rationalizing my own thought process to my fellow commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 28 of 56 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's -- Rattlesnake Hammock intersection intersects Collier Boulevard just south of this not very far away, and there are numerous rentals there along that road and then the other side of Rattlesnake Hammock. So I don't -- I know that the area, Naples Lakes, has always wanted to have for-sale products there because there's just -- it just keeps -- there's just rentals and rentals and more rentals being built just on that corner, that intersection. And if -- really, if you took the 690 units all together on that parcel, 147 of them have restrictions; that's 21 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's a lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you have any further questions, you know -- I forgot to introduce Norm as part of the team, didn't I? I forgot Bob? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At the neighborhood information meeting -- and Karen mentioned Naples Lakes, which is right across the street, actually, to the west of this property -- this has always been a thorn in their side, and it's been -- any feedback from residents of Naples Lakes, or do we -- we've got Naples Lakes, great. I'm looking forward to hearing from Naples Lakes, but we'll hold off. I thought I recognized a Naples Lakes, because he's been here before. Because I'm -- because this has really been a real issue. And just for edification, I mean, even when -- before Pastor Mallory's petition folded, we had steel out there. The Board allowed the steel to stay. There was a code issue because of the expansion. That finally had to be removed. I can get into the whole history about this, but the fact is, it has been sitting -- I don't even know who's in there right now, if it even is used by -- as a church. I assume it somewhat is, but it sort of has been sitting for almost 10 years and has gone nowhere. It's not as much of an eyesore as it was originally, but still it's been a concern, and I'll be looking forward to hear what Naples Lakes has to say. With that, thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. Anything else from the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We'll come back up and answer questions or respond to public comment if necessary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're going to let Mulhere get by without having to make a statement. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to -- I can bring him up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, that's all right. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just wanted to make sure you get some billable hours out of that, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to hear from staff now. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. I'm somewhat surprised that we've had a refrain of the statements of an overconcentration of affordable housing in East Naples. We have long strived to displace that myth. There is an equal distribution of affordable housing throughout the county, and that's what we aim to do. And there is by no means an undue concentration of affordable housing, dedicated affordable housing within East Naples. When we include Naples Manor, that's market rate. That's just the market in terms of providing housing that's affordable. But it's not dedicated affordable housing. When we originally approved this subdistrict, they asked for 192 additional units. To attain the additional 192 units, we required -- they didn't volunteer. We required that they set aside 25 units at under 80 percent 5.A.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 29 of 56 and then 35 units above -- or below 140 percent. That's 31 percent of the additional units that they requested originally for the subdistrict was set aside for affordable housing. If this applicant and this owner was surprised that we continue to ask for the same pattern that we asked in the original zoning, that -- the same pattern that the Board of County Commissioners has been requesting of any density bonus that has come before them over the last two years for a contribution to affordable housing related to the public good to be able to exceed density levels that are currently allowed for by the Growth Management Plan, I'm not sure if they're really that surprised that this request has come in. I will say that this is coming at a later date. I wasn't involved at the original pre-application meeting, the original discussions, but this was something that I was requesting and coordinated with our reviewer, Sue Faulkner. So I'll take responsibilities for any late additions or requests for the affordable housing contribution. So now they're going -- they're requesting 384 additional units. They are replacing nonhousing units, the uses that are being eliminated, for market-rate housing. And market-rate housing are going to require housekeepers, they're going to require -- they're going to require maintenance workers, landscape workers, the type of -- the type of professions that are associated with affordable housing. So they are going -- the addition, the switch that they're asking for is going to create a land use that's going to place a greater demand on housing that's affordable within this county. Based upon that relationship, staff feels there's a justification that we would request that a portion of the additional units above what's allowed for by our -- by the Growth Management Plan to be dedicated to address a need that we have within the community. In 2017, when the ULI provided this study on affordable housing and housing affordability within this county, it was documented that 40,000 individuals every day travels to this county to fill the economic needs of this county. We want to talk about traffic, and we find levels of traffic on our roads are unacceptable. There's a cause and a relationship between the amount of -- the amount of employees we have to import from other areas to fill our economic needs within this county. So there is a relationship between what our request is for additional -- for attention to additional affordable housing. If they're asking for 384 additional units above what the Growth Management Plan is asking for, what it currently allows for, we feel that there is a strong relationship and a justification and a -- most importantly, a rational nexus for why the affordable housing request is being suggested. We currently are not in support of the petition as it's proposed related to -- with no contribution for affordable housing, and we wanted to start the discussion with the Planning Commission to feel that -- to see if there was a percentage or a level of that additional 384 that we could have -- that we could request be set aside for those individual -- the individuals within certain income brackets. The way that the current -- the way that the current affordable housing program works, we agree, there's a 30-year window that is required. There is housing amendments that are coming through that I've given you a preview that we're going to hear probably in February or March, and we're going to have a presentation on affordable housing from our Housing Department to provide a little more information to the -- to the Planning Commission related to the need and the relationship of some new proposals, and those new proposals have -- they're starting out with only a five-year commitment. So we recognize that 30 years is problematic, especially when you would go to a for-sale product. What has happened over the past two years, the additional affordable housing that's been required when we've had these density requests above what the GMP allows, we're not working within the current system, the 206 within our LDC that has the 30-year commitment. We are working within a hybrid of what the code would require. So the Planning Commission most certainly -- because they're not -- we're not requesting or requiring them to go through an affordable housing density bonus program as 206 but something a little bit offset that's going to be within their PUD. And within that PUD, the Planning Commission could most certainly say, provide 10 or 15 percent of your units at 100 percent or below area median income, have them restricted for 10 years, 15 years if that's where there's a more comfort level based on the market realities. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. I want to give you a full opportunity, because a lot had been said that needed explaining, and I think you've made some points that are worth considering. I've got four 5.A.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 30 of 56 of my colleagues signaling to be heard, and I'm going to jump in first, if I may, because I think my question could be answered very quickly. We've heard that the current PUD, the density is 1.5 units per acre. What is permitted currently in the urban fringe -- urban residential fringe? What density? MR. BOSI: It's 1.5, and it can go to 2.5 if utilizing the affordable housing. That's the current limit that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: TDRs. MR. BOSI: Or TDRs, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: TDRs can take you to 2.5? MR. BOSI: 2.5. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next is Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. I'm trying to look at your report on Page 9, which is Packet page 1674. I'm trying to understand it, I should say. So first of all, if we jump down, Amersite and Carmen Drive, are those the -- what's being proposed? MR. BOSI: No. Those are other petitions that are in the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- area. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Those are petitions, okay. So they're asking for 10, and we have -- Hammock Park is 13.85, but that's in an activity center; is that why you're saying it's not compatible? I'm just trying to figure out, because 10 seems like it's compatible with 13.85. MR. BOSI: The area of compatibility, staff agrees that there's -- as you get closer to the activity center, the 10 units per acre that is being requested can -- is most certainly in line with the densities that are associated with it. It's as the -- it's the projects that are to the north of this location that have the lower densities that could provide for incompatibility. But it is sort of a transition to the higher densities of the activity center. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So the 10 -- the proposed gross density of 10 units per acre is not consistent with the surrounding PUDs which have a lower approved residential density is sort of accurate and sort of not accurate -- MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- based on what we just -- okay, okay. And right now the density is -- we're increasing it to 10, and what is it now, again? MR. BOSI: 4.32. COMMISSIONER SHEA: 4.3. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So we're doubling the density, and the concern is that by doubling the density, it changes the tone of the project and the impact on the community in such a way that -- if -- you know, if we're talking about the -- we're willing to do it but only if we actually put -- the idea is if we increase the affordable housing requirement. So it's -- it seems like a good idea if we advance the public policy goal of adding additional affordable housing but not otherwise. So -- and I understand that argument. One of the points I had in the beginning is I just wanted you to understand that my issue is not -- and, you know, I think I understand and probably agree with your point. My issue is not that this portion of the county has too much affordable housing. My thought is adding more to this particular parcel seems like that would not be a good thing; that that would -- that would -- I think that would be negative to add an affordability criteria, because you would have an extremely high concentration of affordable housing all in one area, and I do think that that's something that we need to, you know, think really carefully about. MR. KLATZKOW: So you would have a high concentration of policemen and firemen and nurses, because that's primarily what we've been doing here. We're not talking Section 8 housing that we've been putting in East Naples. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But I think that -- that the idea that you have, you know, what -- we would have, like -- what do we have now, 190 we said, now? MR. BOSI: No. What the current -- what they're currently providing for is 60. They're requesting 690. We would -- if you add no more affordable housing, the project would contain -- would contain less than 10 percent of affordable housing, the overall density that's associated with the subdistrict. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And, Mr. Klatzkow, I guess I would say that I'm not -- I'm talking 5.A.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 31 of 56 about affordability more than I'm talking about the set-asides for the different -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think that Mr. Yovanovich has not presented this accurately, all right, trying to say that East Naples is flooded with affordable housing, when the Board of County Commissioners and this Planning Commission has been essentially working on essential workers, you know, for housing. And to say that nobody wants to live next door to teachers and nurses and firemen -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But that's not what I said. MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's what he was saying. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, actually, I think at this point you're discussing public policy matters that are beyond the purview or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if -- and if you want to talk about the law, okay, historically we've never allowed an increase in density unless it was for Transfer of Development Rights for affordable housing, and now we're coming through asking for increasing density rights for market-rate housing and arguing that I'm not going to give you any affordable housing for it. So he's coming forward asking for far more density than he's authorized, all right. Staff is saying, well, if you're going to get the density, then you're going to have to give up [sic] some affordable housing, and he's saying I don't want to. So now we're going to be going over your Growth Management Plan getting no benefit whatsoever. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Are you saying that legally we could not approve a density -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're not going to have a Growth Management Plan if you're simply giving away density for market-rate housing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I'm asking you, is there a legal impediment to us approving this without a density -- or without affordable housing -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to make the policy decision that the current GMP, okay, no longer reflects Collier County and that we have to increase our densities, that's your prerogative to make this as a board, all right. But that's going to have to be a long-term planning mechanism. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. It's not something that -- I think your concern is we shouldn't be doing it piecemeal in a one-off petition -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- because it's a serious consideration. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And it -- all right. So my point was that I didn't agree that there was -- that it was -- this portion of the county has too much. My thought was one parcel might be considered to have too much, and it certainly wasn't firefighters and teachers. It's the affordability element that talks about the actual income impositions, the restriction in the income. And I think we have a combination, is that right, of various factors? When we say "affordable housing," we're really kind of talking about different ways that we're gauging what -- we're putting that label on a lot of different things. One is income, but essential workers, they're not necessarily -- they could be actually having -- with overtime and everything, they could have a pretty good income; is that right? MR. BOSI: This is most certainly correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. BOSI: And in the affordable housing realm, there is various levels of income levels that are -- that are attended to, but there's also an additional component towards where the Board has asked for essential service personnel to be made -- offer opportunities, maybe not within -- maybe not simply requested for affordable housing units but just for units in general. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And to that extent, I think that's a discussion that I would, you know, be very, you know, open to talking to the petitioner about that as a -- you know, an increase in or requirement for that as opposed to the strict affordable housing because, like I said, we kind of meld -- we use one term, and it kind of applies to everything. I think workforce housing and affordable housing, however we're going to distinguish it, could be two different things, and they might be -- they might be -- in the petitioner's mind, you know, they might see them differently as well, because then they can appeal -- you know, the market for strictly affordable housing is -- and the profitability is very different than the kind of 5.A.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 32 of 56 workforce housing that we're talking about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's keep in mind that the affordable housing, if you want to call it that, that's currently in the PUD is top-loaded for so-called gap housing, which is 140 percent, and that's a pretty substantial income. So it's not -- as the County Attorney said, we're not talking about Section 8 people here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Mike, I'm glad to hear that the affordable housing is spread out more throughout the county. My point -- and I don't want to be a source of misinformation -- is that we have heard there's a perception with East Naples residents, and even with the commissioner. We've heard that refrain throughout this commission over and over again that it is concentrated there, that they don't want more of it. We've heard that objection many, many times where we haven't heard that from other parts of the county. We haven't heard the citizens of North Naples complaining there's too much up there. That was my only point. And I respect your work and your opinion in this. Affordable housing is a real problem for essential workers as well. I just wanted to qualify my statements that there's that perception. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. This area of the county, as I stated, is probably the last area of the county that has really grown, and especially in the last five years, and that's along Collier Boulevard and certainly going out the East Trail as you head east on 41. And the price of homes have risen significantly. I mean, we're talking single-family homes that probably a year ago were fairly affordable; they're no longer affordable out there. I want to know what size home are you looking -- this is a pretty high density. What size home are you looking at this site, Rich? Because I'm trying to understand what element of the market you're dealing with, because some of these homes at -- in some of these other neighborhoods, even homes that the builder has built now and -- certainly have gone up significantly. But what are we looking at? I mean, these are -- are these going to be 2,800 square feet? Are these -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They're going to be townhomes in the 1,500 to 2,300 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So the marketability -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add -- there were some statements made that, while they're fresh in everybody's mind, I think it's fair that I be allowed to respond to. We never said we don't want teachers, we don't want firefighters -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and we don't want sheriff’s deputies to live in our community. We never said that. We never said that. So I need that to be clear on the record. We have a commitment right now. We have 296 units. 147 of those, which would be, like, 49.5 percent, if I could do that math in my head, are targeted to essential service personnel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Already? MR. YOVANOVICH: Already, which is teachers, firefighters. A portion of those -- a portion of those are income restricted, okay. So we have -- so if you did -- and Commissioner Homiak did the math for you. If you added the 384, instead of it being 49 percent, it would be 21 percent targeted to essential service personnel. A portion, slightly under 10 percent, would have an income restriction associated with that. So don't -- the record can't say we don't want teachers and nurses and firefighters and sheriff’s deputies to live in this community. That is not what we said. Now, we are looking at a different -- we're not doing detached single-family. We would be doing townhomes that would fit the niche of price points that, hopefully, as you move up the educational ladder and you have two teachers working together, they make an income that is above gap. That's the problem is you have homes that if you have two firefighters that have any experience and make a decent living, they can no longer find a house in those price points. That's a niche. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's my point. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a niche we're providing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: These homes are going to be -- let's put it -- be frank. They're going to be 5.A.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 33 of 56 a townhome. They're going to be more affordable than Hacienda Lakes or Isles of Collier, Fiddler's Creek. I can name all the ones going down the street. These are going to be probably -- I would suspect, probably a half to three quarters of a million. That's probably what these homes are going for today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Probably less than that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably less than that. But homes out there just have gone absolutely astronomical. Let me ask staff, because I want to get the staff's -- and I'm reading this sentence: Staff recommends not supporting the proposed amendment. Staff could support the request if the affordable housing bonus was targeted. If I read that sentence, what affordable housing bonus? There is no affordable housing bonus other than what exists. It sort of implied that -- are you asking for an affordable housing bonus? Because this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Read the sentence, if you would. Staff could support the request if the affordable housing bonus was targeted to income levels more in line with the existing affordable housing density bonus. But there is no affordable housing density bonus in this request, so what are we talking about? MR. BOSI: There's an existing affordable housing density commitment that's in the subdistrict -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand that. Are you -- is staff requesting that the affordable housing density bonus be expanded? MR. BOSI: It's pretty clear -- yes, it's pretty clear. For the 384 -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, but, Mike, it is not clear, because you guys have not specified. MR. BOSI: Okay. For the 384 additional units, we believe there should be a percentage of those that are dedicated to an income restriction -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did you state that in this -- I don't see that written in here. That's the first I've heard you say it. I mean, that was not a staff finding. MR. BOSI: There was no number that was suggested. Staff is requesting that a percentage be set aside for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And -- affordable housing. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But not -- not in any way clarifying whether it's rental or for purchase. MR. BOSI: Staff is indifferent to rental or for purchase. We're looking for housing to be income restricted to be available for the individual working needs of this community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Above what's already been approved out there? MR. BOSI: Above what's been approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the justification is because we think we should do it or there's past history for it or what -- that's what I'm trying to understand. MR. BOSI: So the elimination of nonresidential land uses to residential land uses, and those residential land uses are going to create a need for additional -- additional services for those individuals homes, like I mentioned, for landscaping, for lawn care, for service workers, for housekeeping. So those are needs of occupation levels that are associated with income levels that cannot afford housing within this county. Because they are -- because they are exchanging nonresidential land uses for a land use that's going to create the need for additional workers, we believe there's an obligation that they should -- that they should provide for affordable housing to offset that increased need. That's the rational nexus for justification. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess the clarification is "we believe there should be." But that, again, is a decision that would either come from us to validate that belief, or it comes from the Board. MR. BOSI: Correct. And I would remind the Planning Commission of the first hearing related to the Inglesias church. And there was a tremendous amount of deliberation that was going on amongst the Planning Commission as to why you would include a nonresidential land use within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which is part of your Growth Management Plan, when it's currently not allowed. And the debate that went on, what's the public good that's going to allow us to say we're going to allow something that's currently not allowed that's above what the Growth Management Plan would call for? We feel that there needs to be an identified public good that's going to compel us to amend the Growth Management Plan 5.A.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 34 of 56 to allow for this use. That's the whole premise what we're asking for related to the affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but there was no requirement prior to this when the application first came in. I'm trying to understand the history of this. When the application first came in and there was an increase in density, at that time did staff turn to the applicant and say, well, yes, you're increasing density, and we -- to justify the increase in density, we want you to set aside a certain percentage of affordable housing. It appears that that conversation never took place until the staff report was completed. MR. BOSI: I was a consultant with Johnson Engineering when this came in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MR. BOSI: At the end of the day, the request was -- the request for affordable housing came from me, and it was late in the game; I agree. I agree. It was late -- it was late in the game, but they were asking for 384 units above what the current code allows for. And we felt that there could be -- there would be -- there should be -- and the discussion from the Planning Commission, as I said, where there was recognition for amending the GMP, there needed to be a compelling reason, and in their compelling reason, the Planning Commission had debated was, what's the public good that's being provided for, and we see the same -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I could argue the public good is to eliminate what has been a project that's never been completed. The public good is eliminating uses that the community and the neighboring communities do not want in that area. I mean, those are all -- essentially, could be deemed to be public good. I'm waiting to hear from the public and see what the public has to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We're going to have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have some more commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Commissioner Shea and then Commissioner Klucik, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Let's go back to ground zero. You threw out some numbers initially in terms of density, a 152. That's what they would be allowed to build under -- before they got the PUD approved for the -- or the growth amendment to go to the 4.3. MR. BOSI: Yep. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they went from 1.5 or 2 to 4.3 and, in exchange, we got an affordable housing component. MR. BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Now they want to go to 10, which is a much, much bigger increase. It's a whole new deal here. I'm like you. Why would we change -- what's the benefit to the public? I don't see the benefit of the public. And to me it would certainly set the trend in the future that we're going to get our backs put up against the wall about, well, you did it over here. Why would you want me to do an affordable housing when you gave in and allowed somebody else to do it? And then the other question I have is, if they stay with what they have, they can't put any more homes on there, but they have that whole chunk of the property they can put something on. If they developed it within the current allowed uses, would that have more of an impact on our infrastructure, water/sewer, roads, or less of an impact with more housing? MR. BOSI: A public facility analysis I don't believe was performed but, traditionally, the nonresidential -- the nonresidential uses would have created more traffic but less demands upon the utilities such as wastewater, solid waste, and potable water. So there's an exchange. Normally your nonresidential land uses do have a higher intensity of traffic attraction than your residential uses have in terms of generation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But to me, just in summary, as a representative of the public, to make this change without getting something in exchange just doesn't make good business sense to me. So I support your arguments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I guess at some point I'd like to hear from the petitioner about their openness to set aside or to -- you know, to reserve some of these new dwelling units, you know, within the project for the essential services, you know, the teachers and the firefighters. If that's -- you know, from my 5.A.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 35 of 56 understanding, that's different than straight affordable housing. That's making it available to people who we know are having, you know, concerns about, you know, living near where they work that provide, you know, these important services to the community. And I guess that -- to me, that -- you know, that addresses, you know, what my colleague just, you know, talked about, that, you know, we would be making a huge concession, so to speak and, you know, to do that, you know, it does seem like we are looking to see, you know, is this a benefit to the public rather than just, you know, really grossly expanding the amount of units on this land. And then, you know, there's a lot of things at play. That could be the thing that, you know, could tip it over for some of us and the commissioners as well, and the County Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you calling me up? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't sure. We have always been committed to focusing on marketing to essential service personnel. That's exactly what we did in the first half of the project. There's a period of time that we would market to those, and if essential service personnel did not want to live there, we should be allowed to then go to the general population, if I can use that term. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And we can build that in as a requirement. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can, and that's what we did with the eastern half of the project. There was a commitment for a period of time, and -- but that's a rental project, so that's ongoing. It's an ongoing. But if it's going to be for-sale, there would be a period of time -- and we need to think about what that period of time would be where we would market to essential service personnel, and then if they did not want to live there, we would move on to nonessential service personnel, like lawyers. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I'd ask Mr. Shea if that's the kind of thing -- I mean, does that get closer to what you're looking for, or is it -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think we would need to look at the whole plan in terms of income levels as well, not just essential services. But, again, the first deal is done. Now we're talking about the next deal, and there needs to be something, a quid pro quo for us to make such a major change in density to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signaling at this point, so -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I'd just say, not necessarily quid pro quo, but we need to see that there's a -- it serves public policy. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, there's a benefit to the public that is gained from this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to be sure that we get back to Mr. Bosi to complete his presentation. But since there have been a lot of substantive comments made at this point, I want to just weigh in where my thinking is at this point without indicating how I'm going to vote, because I'm not yet decided. But I am inclined in the same direction as Commissioner Shea for reasons that Mr. Yovanovich is well aware of, because we had a candid and fruitful conversation on the phone yesterday. And I understand where he's coming from. But I'm going to have some significant difficulty voting in favor of this unless there is something said that sets the stage or sets the table for affordable housing when it comes back on adoption along with the PUDA. And I just wanted to get that word out there, and then I want to give it back to Mr. Bosi, because we interrupted him. MR. BOSI: And I appreciate it, Chair. But really, I mean, through the responses, I think I've articulated the stance. This really was -- it was really singular focused. We feel there could be an arrival -- a determination of compatibility with the density that's being sought. It's simply, we felt that a set-aside -- and as a suggestion, 10 -- currently, the way that the PUD provides for the 60 units that are income restricted out of the -- out of the 192 that they were provided for, which was 31 percent, we realize that that -- that that was one of the -- the give that was provided for that was associated with the original subdistrict creation. And we would think, from a staff's perspective, at least another 10 percent dedicated to an income level of the -- between the 80 and 120 percent would be appropriate. And we don't think that that would be a tremendous stretch because of -- because -- and even if there was concern that 30 years was too long based upon the current program -- and we do recognize that there are housing amendments that are coming through that shortens that time period -- we would be agreeable to a period of time less than the 30 5.A.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 36 of 56 years if the commitment was -- or the requirement that they were looking for a for-sale unit to something that better lined with what they're marketing could provide for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Mike, what you're saying in a reduction in time goes with my experience of being involved with these affordable projects that are for sale. And when someone buys a home, they don't want that long tail of the 30 years. It's a big obstacle and a hurdle to get over for that sale. And we experienced that in dealing with these projects in the past. That was a lot of the reaction to that. It's hard to make that successful, very hard. So shortening of the time frames provides a lot of flexibility. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Bosi, from staff? MR. BOSI: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything from the Planning Commission before we see about public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, Mr. Youngblood, what, if anything, do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody who is physically present in the room who's not registered but wishes to be heard, please raise your hand. Sir, have you been sworn in? MR. LAWSON: I have not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's legislative, remember? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're right. Thank you. Thank you for catching. Thank you. Never mind. Come on up here, sir. And give us your name, and we'd be glad to hear from you. MR. LAWSON: Yes, my name is Rodger Lawson. I'm the president of the HOA board at Naples Lakes. We're the property that is directly across the street from the area that you're talking about being developed. I have not seen the complete developed plan for this property, but I can tell you that in the last five years we have seen a virtual explosion of rental properties up and down 951, across Rattlesnake Hammock. And anybody that thinks that that doesn't come with a price to public service in terms of additional police protection, additional fire protection, traffic, noise, just the general problems that occur when we have a higher concentration of property is obviously not looking, I think, with clear eyes at what happens when we have that kind of development. So I guess what I would say is, we would prefer to have property that is sold across from us, residential property, if that's going to be the development. You've talked about affordable housing. I'm not an expert on affordable housing and the needs. I do see the need for essential service personnel. The discussion of having a 30-year lock-in seems to be ludicrous. How in the world are you ever going to be able to provide and control housing for 30 years -- affordable housing for 30 years? The more you shorten that period, the more you encourage people, of course, to come in and roll those properties. So I think you've got a real dilemma here in terms of the whole issue of affordable housing. You go too long, you can't sell it. You go too short, you're creating a windfall situation. My personal preference would be to have -- simply to have the market decide what ought to go in there. Let the market deal with rolling those properties at the time people want to buy and sell. I'd like to have them be residential properties, and I think that would be best for our neighborhood. And we do have a neighborhood there that has developed over the past 20 years. That's my comment, and I'd be willing to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The only question I have, sir, is to ask you to please give me your name again. MR. LAWSON: It's Rodger Lawson; R-o-d-g-e-r, L-a-w-s-o-n. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. LAWSON: You bet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other members of the public wish to be heard? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 37 of 56 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we will close the public comment portion, and before we hear from Mr. Yovanovich on rebuttal, I want -- looking at the hour, we need to either have a lunch break at around noon or a court reporter break. And what is the pleasure of the Planning Commission? We do have one more matter to be heard after this in the form of staff-initiated GMP language. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you expect the additional matter to be long or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's something that we have to adopt. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to weigh in on it, but I'm going to end up having to vote for it because I think we're obligated to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've already heard it once. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've heard it once. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's a statutory requirement from the state legislature. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's word for word. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Word for word. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not quite word for word. We have to take what they've given. We could add some more. I'm not going to be calling for that, but I am going to want to make a statement about it before we vote. All right. So let's -- lunch in 15 minutes or a court reporter break in 15 minutes? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Break. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sounds like a break. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifteen-minute break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Yovanovich, do you have rebuttal, sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: Just brief, just brief. The discussion about affordable housing and the concentration of affordable housing has been an interesting one over the years because -- no disrespect to staff, but staff only counts neighborhoods that have an actual deed restriction or income restriction within them to count it towards housing that is affordable for people who provide service jobs. In the old days of a DRI, which they don't exist anymore, that's not how you analyzed affordability, because DRIs had to provide for affordable housing. You looked at neighborhoods like Naples Manor to determine if that was part of the affordable supply. The demand number was an easy one to calculate, but nobody ever wanted to count in the supply a neighborhood like Naples Manor. They only wanted to count Whistler's Cove, because it was an affordable housing apartment complex that had an affordable housing restriction in it. The issue that the commissioner -- the former commissioner who was in -- the commissioner for this district had was housing like Naples Manor and the many mobile home parks that are right in this area and in East Naples were not counted as part of the affordable housing supply. And that's where the overconcentration came from was there were areas that had moderately priced housing that people who were providing services could afford to either buy or rent, but they weren't being counted as part of the supply. That's a philosophical discussion between staff and the commissioners, and they can decide what is the supply of affordable housing. We are not opposed to affordable housing. We never have been opposed to affordable housing. Frankly, I probably have more affordable housing projects approved and for-sale product where people tried to do it as the townhome, and it didn't work because of the income restrictions. They were up on -- actually on Collier Boulevard further north, north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. But they tried the affordable housing density bonus for for-sale product and it just, frankly, didn't work because they couldn't find buyers. So what we're saying is this piece of property with its current entitlements is not a good outcome for the community. I believe the community wants a residential for-sale product to happen on this piece of 5.A.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 38 of 56 property. We can't meet the 10 percent requirement that Mr. Bosi has put on the table for for-sale. Can't do it; we can't do it. So we'll have to go back, and we'll have to go do another NIM and put rental back on the table, if you will, if that's the will of the Planning Commission and the will of the Board of County Commissioners. We think the public benefit is twofold: One, we get rid of zoning that we don't think is appropriate to occur at this property; and, two, we provide for-sale product at a price point that, based upon what we'll be putting there, the 1,500-square-feet to 2,300-square-foot townhome product, will be in the price points to serve people such as nurses, firefighters, teachers that will be able to afford to buy that unit, come to Naples, and stay in Naples, and be in a project that is a for-sale product that they'll like. And maybe they'll move someday. Who knows? They'll move to a different community but would have gotten them here in Naples. They will not be driving from Fort Myers. Naples will be their home. Collier County will be their home. And they'll move within Collier County unless they find a job somewhere that they ultimately decide to leave. You want to get people who are in the essential service categories to live here and stay here, and we think we're providing that opportunity by converting this to a for-sale product. It's, frankly, for-sale product for people who live in the rental communities that are being approved to move into. It will be at a point -- probably at a price point, probably upper 3s, starting, mid 4s price range. Am I close? MR. TORRES: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the price points that probably the market says. I'm not going to put that in the PUD, but that's the market, and that's a niche, and that's an area that we need in Collier County, not just this part of Collier County. We could talk about a percentage of those being marketed to essential service personnel. We want -- we want teachers to live there. We want nurses to live there. We want firefighters to live there. We want sheriff’s deputies to live there. We're happy to market towards those people for a period of time like we agreed on the other portion of the project. It's really -- it's really up to -- it's up to you-all. I mean, if you want an affordability income restricted 81 to 120, it will be a rental project. We'll go through. We can do it. We can do it. We just can't do it as for-sale. That's not what the community asked us to do at the NIM. I understand fully why Mike asked for this to go in. I told you early on, I'm not shocked. I just was -- I'm in a box. I had committed to -- I had committed to for-sale. I have to uncommit, which is fine. I'll go -- we'll go have a NIM and we'll tell everybody, you know, why we're here. Your call. We're hopeful that you can see the benefits of what we're proposing and that you will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they transmit to the state what we're proposing and not what staff is proposing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So what you're saying is, when you started out you said you can't do this and you have to go back for a NIM. What you're saying is, because of the commitment you made at the NIM, you wouldn't want to move forward with a change even if it was -- you were pressed into doing that by the -- you know, pressured into doing it because of what we're telling you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I made a -- the way it works, when you do a NIM, if you make a commitment, you have a commitment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, right. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why you'll see very rarely we make commitments at a NIM. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. The only way you could avoid that is if you accepted the terms of the new condition, but you don't -- you're saying you can't do it because of -- it doesn't make sense financially, then, if you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We cannot do owner-occupied 10 percent of those units or any percent -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's not viable financially is what you're saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't make sense. It does not make economic sense. We will go, and we will have -- I think it's fair that the residents -- the residents who attended the NIM and notified of the NIM prior to our having a hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners know that that's potentially on the 5.A.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 39 of 56 table. You'd want to know that if it was happening in your community, and I'm sure that Naples Lakes wants to know that so they can -- their voice can be heard, because we have one person here who says he doesn't like that idea. He likes the for-sale idea. And it's important, through this process, that people know what's happening. With that, I don't have anything further, because I know you have seven minutes. So I don't know how you're going to go, and maybe Terri can get her break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've got two questions. What is being built -- I can't recall -- I know it came before us for approval -- at Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake across from, what do you call it, Naples Lakes there at the corner as you go back into Hacienda? Is that an apartment complex, or are those single-family homes? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was Hammock Park. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Hammock Park. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, 265 apartments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's all -- 265 apartments. And those were all market-rate apartments? MR. YOVANOVICH: There was a percentage, I believe -- MR. TORRES: I think we did 12, 14 percent at 100. MR. YOVANOVICH: There was a percent of those rentals that were at the 100-percent-or-less category. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So just for the staff, that's just off your picture here, but that's -- that's all apartment complexes. There's an apartment complex over -- just to the south of Naples Lakes. I know part of that is Lely development, or I think it is, if I remember, and there's several apartment complexes. And then -- there's one further north, another complex. But -- and, Mike, apologies for kind of hammering you, but my frustration with this is to -- if staff wanted this to be an affordable housing density bonus, they should have informed the petitioner back in the formulation phase, and that's what should have been presented at the NIM. My frustration is -- and when I read the report and I had this discussion with Rich, I said, we have this -- what is it that staff wanted? And you finally put it into words, but there was none of that in the staff report. It was sort of like, well, we really would like the affordable housing, but we don't know what, but why don't you, the Planning Commission, figure out what you want. I mean, that is just not the way to operate, and it was not the way to put a staff report together. That was truly my frustration with this. Personally, I don't think this even should have come to us with the disagreement between the staff and the petitioner unless the staff agreed that, well, this is our petition and, petitioner, you can bring it forward, but then you punt to us, without any -- and there was none of that in the staff report. My frustration also is that there was -- that none of this was discussed in the neighborhood information meeting. But with that statement being made, there is a high concentration of rental because the land was available on Collier Boulevard. The other one is currently under development at Rattlesnake. Yeah, that's a significant number of homes. I don't agree with Paul, and I understand what Paul's saying but, again, I -- my real issue here is if they -- if we force the developer into a box because of the deed restriction and the requirements, they build a rental unit, we -- now, I don't know. I know the affordable housing staff does track rentals, and there's -- they claim -- the claim is that there's a significant need for rentals in this county, but I've got to tell you, rentals in this county are probably not affordable, a lot of the rentals that exist right now. They're pretty high. But the -- if you're going to build a single-family home there, and we put some kind of restriction on it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean multifamily? It's going to be for-sale. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Multifamily for sale, and we put a restriction on it, who would have to manage that? You would, the developer would. The HOA or somebody would have to manage -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess it would be the individual unit owner because, for instance, by way of example, I sell the unit to Mr. Shea because he qualified -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- he's going to have to self report that he sold it to me who made the right income or else he's exposed, and I'm exposed as the buyer. The seller's exposed. It becomes an individual unit 5.A.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 40 of 56 owner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who does the responsibility fall on to oversee all of that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming it's Collier County. It's Collier County, and they'll bring the code case against the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You know, I mean, there's not a second in place. There's not anything else like there is with -- with Habitat where there's an entity that manages the for-sales of Habitat because of this, their second -- but in this case it's the affordable housing staff that would have to manage it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I would have to ask staff, you know, what is the track record of managing it? Probably -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I would probably say that it's pretty difficult to manage it. But -- I don't know. I'm at a loss here. And I'll figure out where we're going to go with it, but thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'd like to get educated a little more. Joe started something that I don't fully understand. And my question was how does Habitat work that, because you do buy their houses. So now I understand they have a third party, basically, that manages the resale so you can't come in, buy it low and sell it high and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Habitat -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, yes they do, though. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- as an entity, holds a second mortgage, and they have to sign off on -- my understanding, they have to sign off on the second mortgage before it can be sold. Now, there's been a lot of discussion whether that's being done or who oversees it. You know, there's a long history, and I don't want to get into that. But, yes, there is an entity that oversees it, and that's Habitat for Humanity -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: In the case -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- management staff. COMMISSIONER SHEA: In the case here, if they were for-sale units, we would expect the county staff -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Somehow there would have to be a legal instrument created that would require -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, since we're doing so much with affordable housing, it would seem like you'd know the answer to that right now. MR. BOSI: Yeah. There's a deed restriction that's placed upon the unit, and it's monitored by the Housing Department. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And how many deed restrictions are in existence right now? What's the monitoring rate, the successful rate? You don't have to answer that, because I know it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what does that mean, a deed restriction? So that you can only sell to somebody within a certain income bracket? CHAIRMAN FRYER: A certain time frame. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A certain time. MR. BOSI: And there's a certain amount of appreciation that's allowed to be enjoyed by the individual owner who sells it, but it's capped at a specific percentage. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER SHEA: And the only other comment I had is I know -- I hear some of my colleagues saying that they're worried about whether there's too many rentals. I don't think it's our position to decide whether there's too many rentals. I think the market decides that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, and then we're going to take our break. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I was going to say that as to the -- you know, as a practical matter, if someone comes to me for closing on a home -- and it's happened before with, for instance, the -- I think they 5.A.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 41 of 56 had some second mortgages that the county maybe is involved in -- and those kind of things show up on a title search, you know, so -- most people buy a home, they get title insurance, especially if they're getting a mortgage, and so that does show up, and it becomes -- it certainly isn't something that I could ever overlook, you know, or I would just say I can't do the transaction if we're -- you know, if we weren't going to be following the -- whatever the restrictions are. So, it really -- I understand as -- oversight that the government has, it could be cumbersome, but I think the market or, you know, the normal course of business it gets -- it supports -- and there's great incentive in the normal course of business to follow all those restrictions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Would you mind, Commissioner, if we wait for 15 minutes? MR. EASTMAN: Just to support. It's two seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. EASTMAN: It's all through title insurance, Robb. And I agree with you, and no title company's going to allow a transaction to go through with those restrictions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be in recess until 12:15. (A brief recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 12:15 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Before I go to Mr. Yovanovich, I've got a couple of things I want to say. First of all, with respect to process. Not this matter particularly, but just so the Planning Commission knows, we get NIM transcripts in different forms. Sometimes we get them in writing. Sometimes we get a WAV file or an MP3 file, and I noticed that there was -- there was no transcript in these materials, so I was in contact with staff, and it turned out in this case the NIM materials were provided in the form of an MP3 file, and going forward those will be posted on CityView. So if you don't see what you're looking for in the staff materials by way of a NIM transcript, check out CityView. And if anybody doesn't know how to do that, staff can show you. And it's there, and it can be downloaded regardless of the size. And the second thing I want to say is to compliment Mr. Mulhere, who -- to compliment him because I listened very carefully to the MP3, and you did a very, very good job in hosting both in fairness and respectfulness to the speakers and yet politely insisting that everybody identify themselves and everybody use the mic. MR. MULHERE: Oh, that's brutal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So thanks to you for the good job you did. MR. MULHERE: You know, if I -- just quickly, about four or five years ago we started not only audio but video recording. And it's a little more expensive, but we do provide that information, and now it will be available to you. I think some people feel a little more comfortable just watching the meeting as opposed to just listening to it. You don't get the full context. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's great. And so if you provide an audio and a video to staff, I hope they put that on CityView, because we can download very, very large files, maybe unlimited size. With that, unless anyone else has an announcement or a comment of general interest, we'll go back to Mr. Yovanovich. Sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I'm just answering questions at this point. We were taking the break, I think that's where we were. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let me -- no one's signaling, so let me offer something here. I'd like to find out if we could reach an agreement of some kind that recognizes a need for an additional public benefit in exchange for the 384 more housing units. And I'm not necessarily specifying rental versus ownership, but I've heard it mentioned, and I'm going to ask Mr. Bosi and Mr. Yovanovich, of course. If we were able to add an additional 10 percent, whether it's rental, ownership, I don't know that that matters, and put that on the new tract and have it to be offered to 80 to 120 percent of median income and have it -- if it is ownership, have it constrained or subject to the resale limitations limited to, let's say, a three-year period. Is that -- is that something that's even close to what the parties might be able to agree to? And I'll ask Mr. Bosi first. MR. BOSI: The issue of resale, I mean, conceptually I understand. I've not been through the mechanics, not being on that side of the shop. But in terms of where staff is proposing amendments to the housing plan, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 42 of 56 we were at five, and that's not very far from the five-year commitment that we are going to be proposing, so the staff wouldn't be in disagreement with that level. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If that were -- and we'll find out where the applicant is. But do I interpret correctly that staff could subscribe to that as its recommendation if -- MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- the applicant would -- okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a secondary question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. We've got two. So go ahead. Commissioner Shea, you're first. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Again, I don't understand the rules. But is it an option -- this is maybe for ourselves -- that we increase the commitment on the first parcel of land that -- the rentals go to a higher number in terms of a commitment to affordable housing and then allow the petition to go -- it's not possible? MR. YOVANOVICH: That property is not -- that's owned by somebody else. As much as I'd love to gift them that commitment, I can't. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mike, has there been any thought about any type of program for down payment assistance? Because the -- here's the problem: Most of the rentals today, and maybe the housing staff -- because most of the rentals today probably the rents in Collier County now are exceeding probably what it would cost even for a mortgage payment, because rentals are in such high demand mainly because of the time frame and people can't afford the down payment. So I think a more appropriate program for the county would be some kind of a down payment assistance program to get people into home ownership, because that's -- that's really what -- I think what we would prefer, we, as a society, when I say use the term "we," because it fosters a commitment to the community. But I don't know where we are with that, and I -- during the break I did ask Rich if -- I thought at one time we had a petition where there was an offer for down payment assistance versus a deed restriction and affordable housing, and I don't know. I don't -- I can't remember if -- what we did under that where the -- it was a petitioner that offered a down payment assistance to essential personnel. I don't know if that gets into an equal protection issue, though. That could be argued. You know, I'm not a firefighter, I'm not a policeman or whatever, therefore I'm denied under equal protection, but let them fight that in court. So I just don't know. I don't know. I thought we did that at one time. MR. BOSI: Your recollection's like mine. I thought we did have a down payment assistance program. I know we do have Jake LaRow from our Housing staff who may be able to explain a little bit more. But I thought we did have a program that did provide for down payment assistance. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There was at one time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There was at one time, but I just don't know what -- I can't remember how the program works, but I believe this was offered by a developer, and the developer was going to make it as part of the promotion to get people into the home purchase rather than -- but let's see what Housing says. I'll throw it at the -- blame Housing. Are you the Cormac Giblin clone now or -- MR. LaROW: Yeah, the new Cormac Giblin, yeah. Jacob LaRow, manager, Housing and Grant Development and Operations with CHS, for the record. So, yeah, lots of history, of which I want to profess some of my ignorance. I'm relatively new to the county; here six months. I can speak generally to down payment assistance programs without getting too far into the weeds that we have had those programs in the past, and we still have a new construction assistance program that's supported through our SHIP, State Housing Initiatives Partnerships Program, through the State of Florida. We had a more robust, as I understand it, down payment assistance program in the past; however, I think, it is my understanding, the implementation of the program ran into issues with the Clerk, the Finance Department, and so it became relatively hard to implement and so, as a result, that went to the wayside. But, yeah, many of those programs do have a second or silent mortgage, of which is typically or usually secured by a deed restriction that runs with the land for whatever period of affordability that the program 5.A.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 43 of 56 may require. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because my -- as I said, my belief and my thought is to promote homeownership. That's the way -- I mean, year after year you can talk about studies, but that's the way people grow wealth. They really do. They grow wealth by owning a home. Owning the home is -- and this -- it's been argued and studied, but it is the way to grow wealth for people, especially as they're young folks and get them into homes, rather, but that's a decision they make. Home -- rent versus buy, but the homeownership is -- if they're going to stay in the community, is more desirable. But, again, the hurdle is the down payment assistance or the down payment. I think the only ones that can probably get a loan today without down payment is through a VA loan. So I don't know. That's kind of where I'm at with this thing. I'm trying -- I'm trying to get homeownership is what I'd really like to see. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Don't go away, Jake. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I wanted to ask Jake, I think along the lines of what Joe's thinking, but we're not experts on it. You've been around. What would you suggest how we -- is there any mechanism you could suggest we could bridge the gap and come up with a homeownership type setup that might be palatable to the petitioner? MR. LaROW: Well, with respect to this specific project, I can tell you that we do have and have experienced previous programs such as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that have implemented deed restrictions that are monitored. We have a compliance unit within CHS that monitors homestead exemptions for other programs that the county offers that benefit homebuyers or homeowners. So we do have the compliance and the ability to monitor that long term and, in fact, we're in the middle of that monitoring which has come up, discussion, I believe at the board level recently as well. So we're in the middle of completing that as we speak. So regarding the specific offering of programs, due to the difficulties that I just referenced about implementing down payment assistance programs locally that's limited by the amount of grant dollars we have available within CHS, I have been in discussions -- for example, the NCH, they've had representatives meet with us regarding long-term affordability or just immediate affordability for their employees that they're looking to bring in. Also a discussion with the veterans potential hospital for coming in in terms of making housing affordable for folks that will be employed there. So this is more long term, but I am looking into working with the Housing Finance Agency with Collier County to work with the state. The state Florida Housing Finance Corporation offers a lot of down payment assistance for eligible households and connecting people with other resources if it's not available directly through the county, so that could -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm thinking more of the down payment coming from the developer. Selling it at a certain rate. Instead of reducing the rate, he would sell at what he wants to sell it at and give some of that money to the applicant as a down payment. Is that feasible? MR. LaROW: Well, I do believe there's an existing project -- and I don't want to get too far over my skis here in terms of terminology. But NC Square, I believe, is an existing PUD that has an affordability restriction for owner-occupied housing, and people have reached out -- potential purchasers of that property have reached out to our division to inquire about what other assistance would be available. And so I've connected with them in terms of working with Florida Housing Finance Corporation, for example. But the -- I think getting into what might be offered in terms of down payment assistance from the developer, I'm not aware of something like that that's been done here locally and that would be -- you know, get pretty complicated, I would think. But that's certainly -- you know, I'm willing to work with and coordinate with the petitioners to -- if that's the direction we want to head in to see what might be available and we can look into. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Do you want to be heard first, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't tell. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You'd like to know what the motion is first. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 44 of 56 COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is a first. He couldn't say anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: Going down memory lane at Collier County, when you've been here long enough, everything kind of goes in cycles. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We used to have a program where, at a closing of a unit, the developer would give to the county $1,000 per unit that the county would then use for affordable housing projects wherever the heck Collier County wanted to use that, so then you could use -- the county could decide how it wants to -- let's just say we did 200 units in this project -- MR. KLATZKOW: We are not going down that road. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the Affordable Housing Trust Fund -- MR. KLATZKOW: We are not going down that road. MR. YOVANOVICH: You asked me about -- the problem with down payment assistance is the developer can't give a buyer down payment assistance, okay. You just -- you can't do it. So you're looking for a mechanism to help people get into units. The only way I could think of doing that is through the payment to the county who does have a down payment assistance program. So if memory lane's a bad memory, I'm okay. I just was, you know, suggesting that that -- so that's all I wanted to say before you -- MR. KLATZKOW: I seem to recall your calling it an extraction several times. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I never used those words. I had others. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So before I make the motion, I would ask staff how we could -- or even the petitioner how we could put the requirement in. So my motion would be that we approve it without the -- without any affordability change requirement but with the condition or the requirement that there be -- there be some property set aside and marketed to the essential services personnel. And what is the mechanism by which we could do that so that I could add it to my motion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point of clarification, sir. Would that be in addition to 147? Are we talking about -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to discuss that. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I want to know how to form my motion, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll second it for the purpose of getting to discussion. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for clarity, you're making a recommendation but at -- you're asking for a set-aside of a certain tract that will be for affordable housing? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that will be -- specifically that will be marketed to and set aside for exclusive marketing availability to essential services personnel so that obviously the homes would -- you know, they would try to meet that need because they would be restricted from marketing these particular homes to other people so, you know, there would be an incentive to make sure that they would meet that -- those buyers' needs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: From what I heard you say is it's -- it would be a certain area set aside. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understood a certain percentage -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Certain percentage of what you're selling is not -- you can't sell it to anyone for, you know -- again, I don't know how the conditions work, what we're allowed to do. But the idea is you're creating -- otherwise, these products don't sell, so, you know, you have an incentive to make sure you're creating something that people that are in these restricted categories, these essential services personnel, that it's a product that's attractive to them so that they will want to buy it, but you can't sell it to anyone else for a certain time period. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm just throwing out what's already in the affordable housing agreement for 5.A.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 45 of 56 this project on the rental side for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a different project, you said. Totally different owner. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, but I'm just saying the concept. The concept's already there, so there's language that's already in -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So we can adopt that language but in a for-sale situation. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would do it in -- you'd say the new 3- -- of the new 384 units, X percent would be exclusively marketed to essential service personnel for a period of X days, and after X days -- this is the concept -- it could then be marketed to someone who's not within the essential service personnel category. Is that the concept? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It seems to me whatever that time period is, it needs to be meaningful where there's a real incentive for you to offer a product that would, you know, fit the needs of these people that we're trying to serve their needs; otherwise, it's -- you know, it's an exercise in showmanship. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. I seconded for discussion. And let me -- before I call on Commissioner Shea -- I would want to see some more specifics at this time in order to garner my vote. I'd like to see 10 percent, and I'd like to -- I don't care whether we specify rental or sale. I think that can be up to the developer, but I think we need another 10 percent, and it needs to be between 80 and 120 percent of the mean -- median income, and I would propose that it be restricted for a period of three years. Would you accept a friendly amendment to that affect? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So it's been moved and seconded, and you want to maybe -- well, I'm going to call on Commissioner Shea, but do you want to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, no, because he added restrictions, as I understand it. That's what you did, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I did, yeah. I don't think first offers to essential services personnel are -- I mean, they're so easy to circumvent. You know, you offer it first to essential services at a price they can't afford, then that time expires, and then you offer it to the market. It doesn't work, in my judgment. And I've got -- and I know you want to speak, Commissioner, but Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'm trying to get an understanding on your second. You added income classification rather than essential services? Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it would have to be offered to those with 80 to 100 and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the reason -- I picked up on what I think staff could live with. That's where I got that idea. I would -- I would be willing to change the wording to essential services personnel. Maybe you get to the same place that way, but conceptually -- and the other thing I'm doing -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I prefer that, because I've always had trouble with this equal protection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You prefer the 80 to 120? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eighty to 100, because that opens it up to anybody. They could be working in the tire store. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the real issue there, only for clarification, is they -- if it's a for-purchase, they still have to meet all the other financial requirements to qualify. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. And I'm also proposing a much shorter duration of this restraint. And I guess what I'm still proposing is an amendment to the main motion, that it be limited to a period of three years. After three years, it can go on the market to anyone. And so I'm going to call on Commissioner Shea, and then I'll make a motion to amend the main motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that was that 10 percent of the units? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And just to clarify, what is the income requirement then? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Eighty to 120 of mean -- median annual income. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 46 of 56 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is that even someone who could afford the fees? This is going to be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: At the end of the day -- just the reality is you're saying, Mr. Yovanovich, do a rental project and go tell the neighborhoods at the NIM that there's going to be a rental project, because that's what -- the income threshold you just gave us will result in a rental project. I'm not -- I just want you to understand the practical impact of what you've just said, and we'll go have our NIM and we'll say, sorry, we have to -- if the Board ultimately goes through with this, we have to change our commitment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can't you just go back to essential service and no income? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, that's where it is now because I haven't -- I have not accepted the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- the amended -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to hear from Commissioner Shea, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'll go back to the basic -- if I view myself as a businessman and the citizens are my stakeholders, not getting anything in exchange for making such a large change in density I'd be surprised if I had my job at the next board meeting. So I like where we're heading, trying to find something that we can sell the citizens, that we've done something -- we've gotten something good in exchange for allowing more density, and that's where we're kind of heading. I would ask, Jake and Mike, what do you think about the proposal that Commissioner Fry [sic] -- MR. BOSI: Having a 3 percent -- or a three-year requirement is relatively minor. It does not force 10 percent of the units to be held with an individual who meets the qualification of 80 to 120 percent, and having that restriction of that unit for only three years, to me, does not force a multifamily development. It simply states that 38 units are going to be held for three years. There's no 30-year. There's no 15-year window. There's not even a five-year window. It's three years that they're held, and they're going to be reserved for income restriction, and then after three years that restriction goes away. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: After years of purchase? MR. BOSI: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Three years after purchase? MR. BOSI: Yes, from the date of sale. Three years it has to remain income qualified, and then after three years, it's no longer income qualified. They could work around that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on a second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's talk real numbers. A family of four makes roughly 83-, 85-? What's the number? MR. LaROW: Eighty percent, four person -- MR. YOVANOVICH: $67,440 for a family of four is the 80 percent number. That -- probably the price point that we could sell a house for is about 200,000, 250- tops for that? MR. LaROW: That's the 90 percent average sale price provided by the IRS for Collier County, 400,000. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking you, what can you qualify for when you only make $67,000? The rule of thumb I learned was three times your gross income is what you can afford to buy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Why don't you go look at 120 percent, which is the high end, rather than low end? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So pick that number. Three times that number -- 120 percent is what? You've got it right there, Jake. 101,000. So a $300,000 home. You can't build it for that. Between the land costs, the construction costs, and impact fees and everything else that goes along with that, you're not going to build it for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you were telling us -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're going to be better off -- I'm just telling you the math. The math is going to push you to a rental project. Just -- I just want everybody to be aware of where it's going to go. I know Mr. Bosi says they can work around it, and I'm telling you the workaround is going to be you're going to do a rental project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask you this. Let's keep trying to see if we can resolve it. What about if it 5.A.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 47 of 56 goes to 140 percent, which covers the full gap? MR. YOVANOVICH: 118,000. So now you're at 350-. I'm not sure we're there yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you were sure we were there when you were talking about running between 3- and $400,000, and those were your words. MR. YOVANOVICH: I said upper 3s is what I said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't hear the "upper." MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I said, upper 3s. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Are you saying that the entire project has to be rental, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: The way you're doing -- the way we're doing this with 10 percent of the units -- either way, if I have any rental units, I'm having a new NIM. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a possibility of splitting the project into two. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Just -- I'll clarify so I understand. There's got to be some -- in your mind, you know, the petitioner's mind, if we impose this restriction, then you have to rejigger the project, and some of it has to be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Rental. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Rental. And so that's all I'm saying is, it's not the whole thing turns rental. It's that a sliver of it turns rental. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know the exact numbers right now, Mr. Klucik, but a portion -- there's a possibility of a portion of the project being for-sale and a portion of the project being rental. We haven't done the math. We've looked at that as an option. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not ready to tell you what that is. I've still got to go -- I've got to go now have a NIM. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then you do the NIM, but then -- so we pass it with that restriction, you have to do the NIM, but that's it. Then you've qualified -- or fulfilled your requirement to go ahead and correct the record so the people -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I will do that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- understand, or do you have to come back to us again? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll be back to you at the adoption. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Adoption. MR. YOVANOVICH: But my -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You will have been -- so in my view, where I'm at, I think the fact that what I would call a sliver of the project converts -- I understand that that's going to be, you know, something that, you know, the people that you promised to or -- you know, of course, they would have a concern to that. But I think a sliver of it being rental is pretty good considering, you know, that the alternative is is that, you know, it's probably not going to get the support. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is staff comfortable -- I'm just -- let's -- if we're going to brainstorm? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you-all comfortable with 100 percent of the units, whatever that -- let's just say 10 percent of whatever I build, okay, let's pick a number. Let's say we actually do 384 -- 38 units would have to be in the 80 to 120 category from what I just heard you say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll give you 140. MR. YOVANOVICH: Rental. I'm just saying -- my next question was, are you comfortable with the 38 units -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Being 80 to 120. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- being -- all of them being rental? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Those units would all be rental is what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. But from a hypothetical -- my hypothetical was, I build 380, 38 units would have to meet those income thresholds. Are you comfortable with all 38 of those units being in the rental units and none of them being in the purchase? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 48 of 56 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would actually like to hear from each of my colleagues -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I'm trying to understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- to see if everybody does feel comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I like your motion to begin with without any -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Without the income mentioned? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to be heard on where we are at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd just make a comment. We get into this exclusionary housing versus inclusionary zoning. You know, are we setting aside a certain area for low income and then the rest of it -- that becomes problematic and that's a whole other issue. So if we have rental and for-purchase, is just a rental what you're saying, just a rental for affordable housing? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because under your new -- under your current program, I can't do that. I can't. I have to -- I have to mix and mingle them. So there would have to be a percent -- 10 percent of the for-sale and 10 percent -- the cumulative 10 percent, so I guess it would be whatever the number is, would have to be for-sale and a percentage would have to be rental under your current program. I don't have the ability -- I'm just asking you, are we talking about that as a potential option? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here's where I am on this: I'm not going to be able to vote for something that doesn't at least give a significant nod of a head to the concept of affordable housing. And I like Commissioner Schmitt's idea of not trying to say essential services because of potential constitutional issues. I'd go to 80 to 140 as opposed to 80 to 120. And just for those who may not know, that difference between 120 and 140 is gap housing, which is high-end stuff. And I think that that will have the effect of attracting the essential services personnel in a way that wouldn't offend the Constitution, if it would. And as far as the need to have another NIM is concerned, sorry. I mean, I am surprised, with all due respect, Mr. Yovanovich, that you would have made any kind of an inadvertent commitment. I've never heard you make an inadvertent, so I have to think this is an advertent commitment. MR. YOVANOVICH: It absolutely was, because that's what the community across the street wanted, and we said we will give you what you want. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, out of the -- out of complete respect for you, I won't remind you of other details -- other deals where the community has not wanted what you're proposing and you didn't give a darn. MR. YOVANOVICH: There were times my client wasn't willing to do it. It isn't me. I don't own any of this, as you know, but the client -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I won't mention any names; One Naples. Okay. All right. So, I mean, I would like to see if we can't now plow forward and reach an understanding recognizing that if we pass something and you say, I'm not sure I can live with this, you can -- I mean, we're just advisory to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And between now and when you meet with them and between then and when you come back for adoption, you may have a different plan that is just as appealing to us with respect to dealing with the community issues and obtaining some benefit for the community in exchange for 384 more housing units and a density of around 10 dwelling units per acre, which is very high. I mean, you can be creative and you can work through that and come back and really have a win-win. But for me to be voting in favor of this, I've got to have a significant nod of the head to affordable housing because, without that, I just don't think that -- I think it's a giveaway of density, and that's not what the -- I don't think that's what the Board of County Commissioners is wanting to do. Anybody else want to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we've got -- where are we on the motion? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So far I have not amended the motion. Like I said, I would like to know who would support it as I've made the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You want to restate it for everybody? It might be a good idea. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 49 of 56 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. So I'm just -- that we impose 10 percent must be marketed to essential services personnel and nothing more. And so I'm trying to find out if we have support for that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And no time frame associated with that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For -- I don't know -- for two years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if we're talking about rental, it's going to be in days. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Klucik, we usually have dealt with -- we have said in the Comp Plan that you have to have a time period, and we have usually put in the PUD what that time period is. You'll see that at adoption. I can't tell you today two years works. I would like some time. Yes, the concept works. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. I'm willing to leave that part open-ended, that they have to come back to us with a time period, but it's -- that can be determined later, and we can vote on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're 10 percent, and you want essential services rather than the percentage? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, yes. Okay. Do you want to go down the line and see -- Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, as I discuss this issue of essential services personnel, what is our legal definition? And then it gets -- I always had a problem with this because it gets into the whole equal protection issue. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We've been using it. MR. KLATZKOW: But correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the LDC define essential services? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I'm asking. MR. KLATZKOW: We have a definition. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I would be happy to use that definition in -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Does it define it by income level or just position? MR. YOVANOVICH: By occupation. MR. BOSI: Occupation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is a Growth Management Plan amendment, not the PUD. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's never been challenged, so I'll support -- I'll support the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm going to support it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You do? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman, what are your thoughts? You aren't a voter, but what are your thoughts? I'd like to know. MR. EASTMAN: I'm glad that you're making affordable housing part of it. You just have to do it in a way that's workable for the developer so they can have a successful project, and I think that's an important restraint you need. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Eastman, do you vote on this? MR. EASTMAN: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, he doesn't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Then that's my motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I want to hear from Commissioner Shea, and then I'll speak. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just don't think it's far enough. I don't -- for doubling it. My initial reaction is no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: How about making it 20 percent? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess it gets -- it gets away from -- when you get into essential services versus setting the income levels -- to me, affordable housing should be based on the income levels, and if your 5.A.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 50 of 56 essential services people are in those income levels, they qualify, and you don't get into a situation that Joe worries about, which is the equity. So I would say no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So my motion is to adopt it as it's been presented today with the additional requirement of adding 10 percent essential services personnel with the time period to be adopted when it comes through the second time. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will -- I will vote in favor of it because a significant nod has been given to affordable housing. I'm still -- when it comes back, I'm going to be leaning to where Commissioner Shea is. But at least for the purposes of transmittal, I'm going to be supporting this motion. And I'd also like to ask that if -- when the -- when the consultants and counsel and the applicant meet together and try to identify other ways that are more favorable to the applicant that would still satisfy our concerns, I'd like to hear those at the time of adoption. We're not trying to unduly hamstring your ability to sell or rent properties, but when you're asking for over twice the dwelling units per acre, I think it's important that we have a significant concession to the county. And I would have gone with TDRs. I would have gone with an MPUD so that we would get a reduction in traffic by means of internal capture and the like. There are a number of variables here that could make me be willing to vote for adoption when it comes back, but I'm really going to be looking very, very carefully at that time for a meaningful benefit to the public for the additional density being requested. Having said that, is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I do have a -- the additional request of staff for religious organizations, the language that was offered on the staff report, Page 1678, religious organizations, Group 8661, limited to churches and religious organizations shall be permitted to continue within Tract A for a time not to exceed five years from the date of approval of the ordinance or until such time that a Site Development Plan has been approved for the development of residential units within Tract A, whichever occurs first. After five years from the date of approval, this ordinance -- or when an SDP has been approved for the residential development within Tract A, the identified religious organization use shall cease and is no longer deemed permitted. Further, if the structure of the religious organization is to be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50 percent of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed, and that was language offered by staff, and I would support that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm glad you flagged that, because I saw that as well. And staff is recommending that if we do affirm this, that we include that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In simple terms, the church can stay until the development is approved. MR. YOVANOVICH: Five years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or five years. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would be happy to accept that amendment to add that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the second -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So would I, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. So we've -- we're ready to vote now. The motion has been seconded, and the church condition has been added, and the language of 10 percent for essential services for a time period to be determined has been added, and I think that's where we are. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Nay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It passes by a vote of 5-1 -- 4-1. Thank you. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 51 of 56 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would just like to comment that, you know, we normally don't do that, but I took the poll of everybody because I didn't want to be in that situation. When I first got here, we voted on something quite intense, and that we were almost to the point where we could have agreed and in the end we voted, and it didn't work, and then I thought we could have done something else, but we didn't do anything else. And so then the whole thing just kind of seemed like it petered out. And so that was why I asked to poll my colleagues. And I think that's a good way to proceed so that we don't end up hamstringing ourselves. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I'm in complete agreement, and my predecessor, Mark Strain, would frequently attempt to work things out from the dais. And so any means that we use, whether it's polling people or making suggestions -- and the way we worked this out is we got to a 4-1 vote. And if we hadn't made the inroads that we did, it would have been a 3-2 vote. So thank you for doing that. And without further ado, thanks to the applicant. And it is 12:55. I'm guessing that it is the wish of the Planning Commission that we plow forward. All right. We may have to take another break, but we'll watch the clock and be sure that we're on target, so... (Commissioner Klucik left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is this a vote? Do we need to vote on something? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we do. We've got one, two, three, four. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He just left. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know he did. He said he was going to. We've got four, so we still need a quorum. And I am going to go here. ***The fifth matter today is PL20210001793, a staff-initiated Growth Management Plan amendment. It's now before us for adoption. We've already seen it at transmittal. It's legislative only, so we can proceed directly to staff's presentation. I -- we've already indicated that it's pretty much a -- we could make amendments to add things, but we can't really take things out. I am probably going to vote to accept it in its present form without any amendments, but I am going to want to make a statement at the end about -- well, you'll see when I make my statement. So without further comment, Mr. Bosi, you have the floor. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. This was presented to the Planning Commission in August of this year. It's a requirement of the State of Florida that we adopt a property -- private property rights element within our GMP. We are not allowed to process any future Growth Management Plan amendments until we provide for adoption of the property rights element with -- into our GMP. This is second time you've heard it, as I've indicated, at adoption. We are -- we are suggesting to utilize the state minimum standard in terms of what was suggested in terms of what should be in it. And with that, any questions that you may have of staff... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Takes me to my comment, I guess. As Mr. Bosi indicated, this is pretty much mandatory to the extent of at least adopting the language that has been put forward by the state legislature. We could have added material. I don't think that is sensible at this point. So the Florida Legislature, by means of a new statute, has sought to highlight some of the bundle of rights that together add up to what you might call ownership of private property, but those sticks in the total bundle are not the only ones, and they're not necessarily even the most important ones. There is also, just to name one additional aspect of private property ownership, the right of what is called quiet enjoyment. Now, that's a right that is seen most frequently these days in lease covenants, but it goes back really to the very beginnings of this country when you read the language in the Federalist papers and also Consti -- rather U.S. Supreme Court cases that have come along. The right of quiet enjoyment is just as fundamental as the other rights that have been enumerated in this new statute. And so in my view -- this is where I want to tie it to what I think is of concern to us -- and it follows a 5.A.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 52 of 56 thought that I've had for some time and reinforced in a conversation I had with the County Attorney a little while ago -- that we grant Growth Management Plan amendments almost wholesale. I mean, it's a -- it's to a point where instead of being an exception or a rare exception, it is -- it is becoming something that is almost always tacked on along with a PUD amendment. And I think that we've gotten that backward because, in my view, extreme incompatibility can become such an infringement particularly when it results from a legislative alteration of the reasonable expectations of a neighborhood. And the reasonable expectations of the neighborhood are built into the Growth Management Plan. So when we upset those expectations by amending the Growth Management Plan, it, I think, can reach a point where it has tread unfairly and unreasonably upon the fundamental property rights, including a private enjoyment. And so I caution us all against, as we go forward, focusing only on the statutory indicia sticks, if you will, of the bundle of private ownership and recognizing, as we take our actions, that there are a lot of indicia or sticks of ownership, and they all are of equal dignity, I believe, and we should -- we should consider them because, otherwise, you're going to get a situation where a proposed use -- and, again, I won't -- I won't mention any particular developments to be singled out. But you get to a point where a proposed Growth Management Plan amendment has become so disruptive and so disturbing in the form of a Growth Management Plan amendment that I believe it arguably infringes upon another property owner's constitutionally protected property rights. So I'm just -- all I'm saying is, you know, I'm going to vote for this thing, but it's not an exclusive and an all-encompassing statement of all the sticks or the indicia of property rights that we need to focus on. And we're an instrumentality of the State of Florida. We're just as bound to respect not only those property rights that have been enunciated in the new Florida statute and in this proposed ordinance, which are very important rights, to be sure, no doubt about it, but also under the United States Constitution, the equally sacrosanct rights of homeowners and others who may lack the resources or lobbying power to get their chosen sticks of the bundle featured in a new state law. Thank you very much. I'd entertain any other questions, comments, or remarks anyone would make. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have anything further from staff on this? MR. BOSI: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to recommend adoption. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend adoption of the GMPA that's before us. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Planning Commission. Thank you, staff. ***Now, the last matter that we have before us has to do with notification distances, and I'm going to vamp here until I get to my notes. Okay. So we had asked staff to report back to us with respect to the distances that are -- that are included in the required notifications for various parts of the county and -- in connection with a rezone, in connection with a quasi-judicial matter of any kind. And so staff has gotten back to us on that, and I think we want to talk about it and decide if the limitation is -- if the -- if the boundaries are sufficient or should be made larger, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Bosi. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 53 of 56 MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. And just real brief. The summation -- and it tries to give you a history of, you know, the distance notification when they were imposed, where they apply from a geographic area in some of the other like communities and jurisdictions in terms of what they provide for. The long and short of it is within the urbanized area we have a 500-foot notification; within the rural area, it's 1,000-foot; and then within the Golden Gate Estates, it is one mile, which was just recently increased from 1,000 feet endorsed by the Planning Commission and then ultimately -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's both Rural and Urban Estates? MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. From staff's perspective, the distance that the property notification letters reach within those geographic areas as well as the signage as well -- that is required to be placed on property, as well as the newspaper advertisement, we feel that the distances that we currently have are adequate to provide the required notification and the public awareness that we're trying to promote. And particularly the signs. If you're within an urbanized area and you live within a half mile of a site, you're going to see that sign because you're going to drive by it a number of times because it's in proximity. As you get further out to the rural areas, the 1,000 feet reaches the affected neighbors because the properties are normally so large. And the Estates have an exceptionally large period [sic], but we understood why that was, because of the larger streets and the separation of the houses. So from staff's perspective, we think we have the right distance measures, but we defer to the Planning Commission if you feel that there's an area that you think needs to be increased or a notification needs to be improved in that regard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And just to put this in the proper agenda perspective, I skipped over old business. And I wasn't aware that there was any. I don't think there is any, but if there is, we'll loop back after this item, which is actually 11A, new business. So what do the planning commissioners think about these distances? As Mr. Bosi mentioned, we've got 500 for Urban, 1,000 for Rural, and one mile for Rural and Urban Estates. Does that seem like the right number? Let's all remember that we've had members of the public come in and tell us, not on just one occasion, but multiple times that these distances are not large enough and that they exclude people, particularly in neighborhoods. Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: I would remind you that they were all at the meeting, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, that's a good point. They were. But we don't want to -- we don't want to take away the opportunity of residents to be heard at NIMs. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So is the reason Rural is 1,000 and Estates is a mile is because the Estate lots are so much larger than rural? I don't know what rural -- what the difference is. MR. BOSI: The rural agricultural lots are much larger than the two-and-a-quarter acres of the Estates. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So why wouldn't the rural be at least the same as the Estates -- as Golden Gate Estates? MR. BOSI: Because normally one mile, you're still within the same parcels because the parcels are large parcels. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, really? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Five miles. MR. BOSI: Yes. So that's why the difference between the Estates, why it would seem somewhat inconsistent, but the rural -- the Estates with those two-and-a-quarter acres at 1,000 -- at 1,000 feet, you were only getting three parcels or four parcels away from a project. So we wanted to go a little bit further. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: So you're talking about notice letters that are sent out to property owners? Is that -- MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. So the school district, before purchasing properties, is required to do the same thing, and it's fairly extensive. I mean -- and I ask the Property Appraiser's Office to determine that so that I have an independent third party telling me who's within 500 feet, who's within 1,000 feet, and then I just 5.A.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 54 of 56 follow the list. And the list is pretty large. And also you have -- when it's something that's very, very objectionable, people tend to elicit their other neighbors or talk to their other neighbors. So it's kind of a ripple effect down the line. If you expand this, the list of names is going to be very -- even much, much larger. It's served us pretty well to date. That's my opinion. I think the notice has -- in my personal opinion and experience, it has been sufficient and working well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the school district use the 500, 1,000, one mile that the county does? MR. EASTMAN: We do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And this would be something -- I mean, we couldn't change this unilaterally. We could recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, it would be an ordinance change, if we think something needs to be done. And if -- maybe this is a case where it ain't broke, so don't fix it. And we asked for this report; we're getting it. And, Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I am comfortable with the ordinance as written. I think that it's sufficient. The only key, though, is in many developments, large developments, that oftentimes I think it's -- what you need to do is contact the HOA or somebody that is -- may not be within the 500 feet, but the HOA president or the entity that manages the property so that they can put the word out. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Our applications do require the HOA's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought. MR. BELLOWS: -- civic association. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's a matter of staff policy? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oftentimes those letters just go out. They're shotgunned, and somebody looks at it and goes, I don't know what this is. You could say that about the sign. You're driving 50 miles an hour up Collier Boulevard, and you see a sign and, I mean, in order to know what it is, you really have to stop and read it. But at least, you know, oh, hey, they're going to do something here. I better look this up. But the real piece of all this is to inform the public where they can access the information. And it's easily now -- much easier now than it was years ago because of CityView, publishing the notice -- the agenda notice, and making everything available that they can download. But that's the key is making sure they're informed. But you pick a big development. The plan may not be -- whatever's being proposed is outside the 500 feet. But, again, it's key that people within the big community know what's going on. And I have to depend, again, on the HOA or the management entity or whomever that may be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would -- I'll get to you, Mr. Eastman, if I may, but I just want to tag on to what Commissioner Schmitt said. Would it be -- and maybe this is part of your policy. But in addition to HOAs, what about the CRA advisory boards? What about civic associations like the Golden Gate Civic Association; do notices go to them as well? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We do civic associations, but what was the other one you mentioned? CHAIRMAN FRYER: CRA advisory boards like -- MR. BELLOWS: We do try to coordinate with them. It's not listed in our procedures, per se, but I know we do have a list on our application at the pre-app that they should be contacting the CRA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If the Planning Commission asked staff to make that part of its staff policy to notify them as well, would that be a hardship of any kind? MR. BELLOWS: No. Actually, it might be, because I'm thinking about it. Our applications do reference the CRAs, but we'll double-check that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. CRAs and civic associations? Good. Would anybody object to the notification being sent to them? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only comment I have with civic associations, they would have to be registered with the county or somehow officially identified. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How do we know then? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Homeowner list. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 55 of 56 MR. BELLOWS: There is a registration process for civic associations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Good. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I don't really see a big problem with notice. Where projects are extremely objectionable, you've even seen citizen movement where they get their own consultant, their own lawyer, their own website, and social media and communication things these days, I think that, you know, if you're just outside -- if you're the next house outside of the 500 feet, you're probably going to hear about it if it's a significantly objectionable project. You know, for the minor things where people look at the notice and they're like, oh, this person wants to do something minor, they throw it away, there's not a lot of talk and a lot of community communication about that. But for the significant things, I think the public is pretty aware. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So if there's a Growth Management Plan amendment on Isles of Capri, Goodland, or Everglades City, does everyone get mailed? MR. BOSI: A thousand -- or it's 500 feet of around the property's perimeter. That's where the notification would be, because those are considered urbanized. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And conditional use the same? MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. What? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Conditional use. MR. BOSI: Same distance notification. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does 500 feet cover -- it doesn't cover everyone in a small area, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's true. Would you like -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, something like -- those areas are small. I would think everybody should be notified. MR. BOSI: We have a standard of 500 feet within the urbanized area. If an area is small, normally those are close-knit communities. If someone finds out about a project that's going on, they're required to have a sign on site. And if it's -- the description of the areas that you're -- Everglades City, Goodland, they're small areas. There's signs that are required. The notification goes out to 500 feet. The people talk. There's -- I mean, when we get to -- we were talking about affordability earlier. Every aspect of additional regulation and additional cost goes and stacks against that. So we try to weigh the notification against additional cost, whether it be through additional landscaping, additional -- whatever the development standards. But we feel that it has served us well. We did agree that increasing the Golden Gate notification to 1,000 was appropriate. We feel that the projects become very public if there's any controversy within the area. And Mr. Eastman points out, not only is there opportunities, you know, with notification and the sign and advertisement, but social media as well provides for cross-communication as well. Staff does feel that even within -- such as Goodland, notifying every single property owner on there, I'm not sure if that's necessary to get the word out in the appropriate manner. I think the three avenues that we have definitely provide for awareness, but we will defer to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a civic association for Goodland and the others; Everglades City? MR. BOSI: Ray Bellows, for the record. Yes, I have had a lot of projects done in Goodland, and we work with a civic association down there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And what was the other one that you mentioned, Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Isles of Capri. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isles of Capri. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pretty active. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Civic association there, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if there's a civic association there. MR. BELLOWS: I don't know about a civic association. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What I could tell you is if there's going to be a petition, the people on Isles of Capri will know about it. MR. BELLOWS: As with the food truck park, yes, we got hundreds and hundreds of letters. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 4, 2021 Page 56 of 56 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to speak on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'll make a motion, see if we can move it forward. I move that we keep the distances the same, plus that we recommend to staff that they change their policy or assure that their staff policy calls for notifying, in addition to the HOAs, also civic associations and CRA advisory boards. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It passes unanimously. Any public comment on matters not -- no one is registered, according to Mr. Youngblood's shake of head. All right. Without further ado, without objection, we're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:16 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on _____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 11-04-21CCPC_formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 1 of 23 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 18, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 2 of 23 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the afternoon or first session of the November 18, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, I ask that you call the roll, please, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chair, we have a quorum of four -- five. That would be five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. And I was contacted -- I received a one-way text from Mr. Eastman to indicate that he had a commitment and not able to be here, and also we've heard from Commissioner Schmitt and Commissioner Klucik. They all had unavoidable or unforeseen business commitments, so their absences are, of course, excused. And before I forget -- and I might have forgotten at our last meeting to excuse the absences of Commissioner Fry and Commissioner Vernon. I'm not sure whether I did or not, but I want to be clear to have made a record that those absences were excused as well. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I know staff keeps track of that, so I wanted to have made an official record of to that effect. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: When you said "Joe," it made me remember to shut my phone off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yes. Very good. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting after this evening session is on December 2 of 2021. Does anyone know whether he or she will not be able to be in attendance? COMMISSIONER VERNON: December 2? CHAIRMAN FRYER: December the 2. And while you're checking that, Commissioner, I'll also ask the same question about December 16. Anyone know whether he or she might not be able to be here on December 16? (No response.) COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think I have a conflict on the 2nd. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 3 of 23 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Well, we'll be forewarned. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. Otherwise, it looks like we'll be -- we'll have a quorum on both of those days, I hope. Approval of minutes. We have no minutes before us for action. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to provide that recap for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not a problem, sir. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. The one item that was heard by the Board of County Commissioners was the AUIR/CEI which this Planning Commission had made a unanimous recommendation of approval, and the Board approved it with no changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's see. Chairman's report. None today. Consent agenda, nothing on consent. So we'll go right into public hearings, and make a comment or two, because this is a rather unusual situation that we have for -- those of you who have taken a look at the agenda will see that. And I want to set straight at least what I believe my perception, and I think staff's as well, how we properly should proceed in this way. In essence, we've got companions, three companion items, and we're going to hear two of them this afternoon, and then the third we're going to hear at five minutes after 5:00, which we'll call the evening session. The first one is PL2021000603. It is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay density pool bonus large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and it's back for action today on the question of adoption. You'll recall we heard this on transmittal last June 17, and we unanimously recommended that it be transmitted. So it's back again today on adoption. And it's companion to two LDCAs, and here's where it gets a little tricky. PL20210001033 is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area density bonus pool LDCA, which we're going to hear this afternoon, and it will be heard jointly with the Growth Management Plan amendment. Now, setting the stage for what's going to happen this evening, just to set out for continuity, I'll make reference now to the third companion, which we're going to hear in the evening, and that is the PL20210001222, the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area LDCA. Now, that, among other things, adds prohibited uses. And so in that respect, as a staff-generated LDCA that covers more than 10 acres and adds prohibited uses and then there are some other things as well that would trigger it, that's why that thing has to happen in the evening. And there are no prohibited uses or other tripwires, if you will, that would require us to have heard the first LDCA in the evening. So it gives us a somewhat unusual situation where we're going to have a joint hearing in the afternoon and then we're going to hear separately the third matter. But this afternoon is for matters 0603 and 1033. And since these are all legislative in nature, we can dispense with the need to swear in witnesses and make disclosures, and we can move directly to staff's presentation. Gentlemen. Staff. MR. BOSI: And just from a procedural matter, we were going to have the consultant for the Bayshore CRA to provide an overview of the amendment, and then staff will provide their brief presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Okay, good afternoon. Laura DeJohn, for the record. I'm a certified planner with Johnson Engineering, and I am working on behalf of Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA office today. And with me is Deborah Forester who runs the CRA office, who can also assist with any questions about this program. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 4 of 23 As already mentioned, we have been before -- been before you already with the GMPA, Growth Management Plan amendment, request related to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area density bonus pool. We will also be relaying to you the content of the Land Development Code amendment that's meant to implement the policies discussed in the Growth Management Plan amendment. I'll ask you a couple questions just from a presentation standpoint, is is it acceptable to run through both items from an explanation standpoint, or do you want to pause in between and then -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: The two items that are on for this afternoon? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think however you're most comfortable. We're accustomed to hearing them sort of together. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. Okay. So that's how this is set up. I will begin. And you've heard this before, because we've talked about this Growth Management Plan amendment before when you heard this for transmittal purposes. Just a reminder, the CRA, the community redevelopment area, is an adopted area within the county, and the BCC adopts a redevelopment plan in accordance with Florida statutes to implement initiatives within that defined CRA area. Most recently, the redevelopment plan was updated by Board approval in 2019. And why we're here is because initiatives that are put forth in that Board-adopted plan call for activity to do more within the CRA area to maximize potential development, take advantage of bonus density programs like are already in place, and just improve upon them. So that's why we're here. The Growth Management Plan has a Future Land Use Element that does establish an overlay. So geographically the overlay covers the CRA redevelopment area and defines what initiatives are meant to, you know, encourage development in that area. And then the Land Development Code is the implementing tool which outlines specific standards on how those programs are going to be designed. So you'll -- you can see here what area we're talking about. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle is defined, basically, from Davis Boulevard on the north all the way down to the end of Bayshore Drive to the south. This item has been discussed over the course of over a year. We began by introducing these concepts to the CRA Advisory Board in July of 2020. A stakeholder meeting was held in October about a year ago. The CRA Advisory Board has been the sounding board for many changes that we've made along the way on this document, so we saw them again about a year ago in November. Again in January of 2021. These LDC amendments also weave their way through the Development Services Advisory Committee review. So the Land Development Code amendments went to DSAC in June. You-all heard the transmittal for this item in June as well. As you mentioned, it was a unanimous vote to forward that item for state review. The Board of County Commissioners also unanimously supported that transmittal and no objections were received from any state agencies, so that's why we're back here again. The DSAC voted to recommend the Land Development Code amendment associated with this bonus density program a couple months ago. So bonus density pool highlights: Basically this program was adopted about 21 years ago, so it's been in place a long time. It was meant to incentivize redevelopment in an area that was defined as needing additional encouragement for development purposes, and it's been a success. So the pool originally had 388 units. Those were derived from the PUD rezoning when the Naples Botanical Gardens went from having residential development potential to becoming a botanical garden. The potential units that could have developed on that site were assembled into this pool, and they've been dedicated to potential developments throughout the years. Two hundred sixty-six units have been used so far. You see those when they do come through for rezoning purposes, and density pool units are being requested in the area, and now 122 units are remaining and that's, you know, creating a sense of urgency to replenish the pool. It's been a useful tool. There's been successful development going on in the redevelopment area. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 5 of 23 So one of our goals here is to make a mechanism -- since the Botanical Gardens happened 20 years ago, let's see what other types of property like that could be leveraged to contribute to the pool as well. So the GMPA, the language before you, includes an allowance to allow other projects that are going to nonresidential use to replenish the pool. There's also some additional criteria that is desired to make these units that are being rewarded as an extra bonus to the developer useful to the community as a whole. So in exchange for the awarding of bonus units, the approach here is to put some standards on any recipient of bonus units. Number 1, vehicular access to the property that's being developed should not be gated, because that is a goal of the CRA to be not a, you know, gated-off community to be a walkable and integrated community, and that public-realm improvements should be performed by that developer who's receiving those units from the pool. Finally, we're addressing something that has been an issue for some smaller property owners, and that is where a multifamily zoned property that could be very small in this older area of town, the potential to develop more than just what is entitled to that multifamily site could be greatly improved with just one extra unit, for example. So we've created a program called the limited density pool allocation for those smaller sites. So to be more specific, we have removed the finite reference in the text, no longer referencing 388 as the number of units in the pool. We don't really need that in the Growth Management Plan. We've taken that out and made the threshold that can be requested no more than 25 percent of the total density pool available or 10 units, whichever is less. Also, residential only bonus pool projects which were originally allowed along all the major corridors have been narrowed to be only allowed along Bayshore. And with that, I'm going to switch gears into the Land Development Code amendment, unless you have questions on the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry does. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Laura. MS. DeJOHN: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two questions for you. First is you mentioned 122 bonus -- density bonus units are still remaining. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: How many, if any, of those have been applied for at this point? MS. DeJOHN: There are no pending applications for those 122. The 97 -- there's been a recent allocation of 97 to the Cirrus Pointe/Camden Landing project, which brought it down to the 122. COMMISSIONER FRY: That was really my question, whether those had been netted out, and they have. Okay. Second question is -- and I might have missed this in the packet, but is there compensation for -- when bonus density units are recaptured to replenish the pool, is there compensation for the property owners of the units that then -- that do get released? MS. DeJOHN: The answer's no. There's not an intention to, you know, pay for the -- like, the CRA or county entities would pay for the units being contributed to the pool. It's assumed, kind of like the Naples Botanical Garden, that there's a driving intent by the property owner to not use those units. And it could be CRA-owned property. You know, the CRA has the 17-acre site. We don't know what's going to happen with it. Should a CRA-owned property become a park, then the residential development potential on that site is a natural fit for this program. Any other developer who happens to be developing something -- and purely optional. There's no requirement to grab those units. It's just you if there was -- if the option was chosen by the developer, the excess unused units could be dedicated to the pool; just allowing it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So if they don't use the units, they would go back to the pool, basically. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. And, yeah. Anyone who's awarded the units, we have -- we are 5.A.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 6 of 23 proposing an expiration that was not formerly on the books, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- oh, what did I want to ask? How many units are associated with the 17 acres that might be -- if it was not built residentially, would go back into the pool? MS. DeJOHN: Right now the PUD has 40 units on the 17-acre site. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll cap on, if I may, just to create a confirmation for the record of reassurance that I received from staff on Tuesday and points that were also made back on June 17 when we heard this on transmittal, that even though we're removing the 388 finite number, this is not an increase in density of any kind whatsoever. It provides for a replenishment, but we're not adding density. In other words, we're not offending general principles such as we want to require affordable when we add density. This is not that at all. So -- and I'm absolutely satisfied that that's the case, but I wanted to repeat at this hearing that it is, indeed, so. MS. DeJOHN: No. Thank you for making that point. That's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: May I add a follow-up question to that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: That raises a point. I guess it sounds like the decision has been made that the CRA is willing to have all the eligible residential units developed in that neighborhood; whereas, density is always a big sticking point. It's always an objection from the public. It's too dense. There's too much density. But the CRA has made the decision that we're not going to strive for less density. We're going to basically add this as an incentive for developers to build out the maximum residential density that's possible overall in the CRA, correct? MS. DeJOHN: Right, that limited kind of capped condition of how many units could happen in the CRA by right is just being reallocated within the CRA. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the CRA board, everyone associated with that, embraces that approach? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm glad you raised that, because that is the very question I asked staff on Tuesday, and it's quite pertinent, obviously. Thank you. Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. With no further questions on the Growth Management Plan amendment, we'll shift gears, but it's very similar subject matter. We're now talking about the Land Development Code amendment application, PL20210001033. These are Land Development Code amendments that are specifically targeting the implementation of the Growth Management Plan amendment we just talked about. Before I begin, I think we had a scrivener edit or two, and I'll ask Eric Johnson to share those. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Eric Johnson, principal planner. As the Chair had aptly mentioned earlier, these amendments are all in tandem with each other, although we will hear the one later at 5:05 p.m. This particular amendment, 20210001033, contains some of the same information in it that will be in the one that's later on. So the assumption is that if everything is approved in the subsequent amendment, that that would be recognized here at this one. For example, we're changing the name of the BMUD zoning district to the BO, and then the GTMUD would be GTO. And so that's reflected in this amendment even though that discussion may occur later on tonight. Because we're dealing with the same sections of the code, this one you'll notice that on Page 53 of your packet, that C10 will actually be C13 because of duplication with the one that will be heard tonight. So I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that, that C10 will be C13 and then C11 will be C14 and so forth and so on. And then the last thing I wanted to mention was that this Land Development Code amendment includes an administrative code amendment. So I just wanted that to be recognized. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 7 of 23 That's all I have, and I have nothing further to add to Laura's presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't mean this in a humorous fashion, but I asked it of staff Tuesday so I'll ask you. Are you sure you want to go with "BO"? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I have that same -- COMMISSIONER FRY: And GTO. Little GTO -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I kind of like GTO. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, pretty nice, but you could go BOD and GTOD. It's, you know -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Some of the maps also are -- MS. DeJOHN: Need correction. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- say both. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And the district is the last word of all of these things, and everything else is the same. MS. DeJOHN: There's been a lot of work that has -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's too much BO, that's all I can tell you. MS. DeJOHN: A lot of work has gone into this exact question, so -- and that really is a subject matter for at 5:00. It's BO and GTOs. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. And part of the discussion around that was if it was Bayshore overlay -- it was -- because we -- everything is a district, what would happen would be Bayshore Overlay District District, and they didn't want that repetitive nature, so they just -- that's why they shortened it. So it's BO, but you consider it as the BO District. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're digging in there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think it should be BOD. It doesn't make any sense. MS. DeJOHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think that's kind of a legitimate point of view. I really didn't mean it to be humorous. I think if there's -- if there's a point of view to be expressed up here, we have every right to do so. What do other members of the Planning Commission think about that? What do you want to recommend? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think there should be a D on the end of everything that has a district on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. MR. JOHNSON: I think that discussion would probably be better served at the 5:05 p.m. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's a fair point. MR. JOHNSON: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. Is that okay with you, Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I guess. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. So back on subject of the density bonus pool Land Development Code amendments. I'm going to begin by describing that we are amending Section 4.02.16 where there's discussion of how development is to occur within the CRA in general, and then as a subset of that section, we're introducing this new concept, which is called the limited density bonus pool allocation process. And, again, it's targeted for those unique situations that have been occurring in the CRA area where a small site, two acres or less, may be more viable if it could have just one or two units per acre more, which could achieve up to a total of four bonus units should we have the perfect scenario of a two-acre site calculating out at two units per acre and being granted four bonus units on the site. This allocation process is modeled much after the site plan with deviations process. That goes to a hearing, and it goes to the Hearing Examiner, typically, unless elevated to the Planning Commission. As Eric mentioned, administrative code updates are in your packet explaining just what the 5.A.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 8 of 23 applicant would submit and the type of review criteria which are based on that "site plan with deviations" process where there is consideration of compatibility with neighboring properties and the need and appropriateness of doing that project in that location. I mentioned before, and just a reminder, to access that bonus density pool, we are also adding, toughening up the criteria, requiring that vehicular access to the property cannot be gated and that a public-realm improvement is required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask a question while we're on the two acres? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is the word "contiguous" implied in that statement of two acres? Is it necessary? Do we care? MS. DeJOHN: The intention was that it was a single site measuring up to two acres in size. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Contiguous acres? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we probably want to insert that word, if that's the intention. MS. DeJOHN: I'm just looking at the way it's worded currently. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm looking at the new language. MS. DeJOHN: The property shall be limited to a maximum of two acres, two contiguous acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. There are several places where it says "two acres," and I think if it matters -- and I'm not saying it should. But if it does matter, I think we should specify contiguous acres. And I don't know, other members of the Planning Commission, thoughts? As it happens, the City of Naples has an issue going on where the concept of contiguousness was not dealt with, and now they're arguing over it. And so that's what prompted me to want to ask this question. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think I agree with the Chairman, but what is -- what was the -- did you guys think about that as a staff? Did you -- would you prefer it to be contiguous? Makes sense. MS. DeJOHN: Deborah's nodding her head yes. MR. BOSI: And from staff's perspective, we thought about it as these projects would be an individual stand-alone parcel, not a conglomerating of individual parcels. So that's why we didn't even think to add the word "contiguous," because it's one parcel of land as we thought. But I don't think there's any harm with the addition, the clarification that it has to be contiguous, because I'm -- I don't even think that could apply to two individual parcels. MS. DeJOHN: Right. I could just -- you might have a common ownership across a street and try to achieve, you know, a calculation off of all that ownership, and that's not the intent. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's not the intent. Not the intent. So it wouldn't hurt anything to add "contiguous," because that's what we're striving for. MS. DeJOHN: We agree with that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I definitely support your thought. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, did you -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I just wanted to clarify. I thought maybe, perhaps, by definition a parcel was by definition contiguous, and I think that's where you were going. But there's no harm in adding the word "contiguous." I would agree. MS. DeJOHN: Agreed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And is it sufficient, then, if we feel this way, we just ask that you go through and do an electronic search of the number 2 and the word "acres." MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Great. Thank you. I should ask the County Attorney: Am I creating a problem here in need of a solution? 5.A.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 9 of 23 MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's six of one, half dozen of the other sometimes, but, you know, it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm not creating any problems that you can see? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm not sure you're solving any either, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Okay. Well, that's -- let's do it, then. I think that's the consensus of the Planning Commission, if you don't mind. I'm sorry I interrupted you, Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. DeJOHN: So now we're going to drill down into what is meant when we describe public-realm improvements as a condition of the density bonus pool allocation. So what's defined in the Land Development Code, Section 4.02.16.C, is that the applicant who is, again, asking for something extra, he's asking -- he or she is asking for bonus units that he or she is not typically entitled to, and in exchange the applicant would be required to contribute monetarily or contribute in equivalent physical improvement to their site that is in a -- that is going to benefit the public. And those benefits to the public are defined as something that is within the CRA's public art fund, the CRA capital project fund, or the county capital project fund. The value -- the valuation we've attached to the applicant who's seeking to obtain those bonus units is a calculation which is 3 percent of engineer's opinion of probable cost at the time of developing that site. That's the same calculation already done at the time of applying for a Site Development Plan or a plans and plat approval. That calculation serves to define the applicant's fee just for the review of their application at 3 percent of the opinion of cost. And so having that already built into the system was the amount attributed to the applicant's offering, basically, in exchange for the bonus units. And we do have a graduated charge, I guess, or contribution amount based on the number of units being requested. So the smallest number at one to four units, the contribution or the physical improvement would be the equivalent of 3 percent of the probable cost of that development. At a higher number of units being requested, then the percent goes up to 5 percent, and then if number of units requested is over 10, a 1 percent addition comes with each increment of 10 more units being requested. So it's really, you know, accounting for the larger depletion of the pool; the larger number of units being requested by that developer equals a greater contribution back to the public realm. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ms. DeJohn, the public-realm improvements, are they retroactive? Do they apply to developers that have already received density bonus pool units, or is this only forward looking? MS. DeJOHN: This is only forward looking. COMMISSIONER FRY: Forward looking, okay. The engineer's opinion of probable cost is an intriguing term because it's kind of a wide open what might be, but you said that it is the basis for fees. Which fees are based on that? And what if it's grossly inaccurate? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which they often are. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which I would assume they, by nature, would not be -- who can estimate a construction project that accurately? So what is the ramification of that? MR. BOSI: That's normally a discussion that's engaged between the applicant's engineer as well as the county's -- the county engineer in terms of what they think is that -- is that 3 percent of that -- of the opinion of probable cost. And if it is something that doesn't -- isn't in a correct amount or area from the county engineering perspective, then that goes -- there's a discussion back and forth as to what is the -- a true accurate probable cost of the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is it safe to say that it's a negotiation to a degree between the project engineer and the county to come up with a mutually agreeable estimate of cost? 5.A.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 10 of 23 MR. BOSI: And it's what we do for every SDP or plat that comes through. So it's something that's -- it's engaged in on a very regular basis by the industry as well and agreed upon by our county engineering team. COMMISSIONER FRY: What fees are based upon that estimate? All the fees associated with the project? MR. BOSI: The total cost of the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: But what -- MS. DeJOHN: It's the fee that the county charges to review the Site Development Plan or plan and plat construction plans. It just depends on what type of project's going -- I mean, multifamily projects are usually going to be Site Development Plan applications. And at time of, you know, the submittal of all those construction plans to develop that site, the engineer is required to submit an opinion of probable cost and calculate that 3 percent to write -- you know, the applicant writes a check to the county for reviewing that project for Site Development Plan purposes. And I'll just -- to give maybe some degree of comfort, I don't think any engineer would be willing to lose his or her license by doing faulty estimates. I mean, there are some industry standards and -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I didn't mean to imply that, only that it's difficult to estimate accurately. Is there a review done at the end in terms of the accuracy of that, or is it really just a basis for the administrative review cost of the county and now it's additionally going to be used to calculate this monetary contribution or the value of the improvements needed? MR. BOSI: And just to -- and I think this will directly answer your question. That will be established when that -- when the -- when the SDP or the plat is submitted, our engineering department will establish what that application fee is, and that's that 3 percent and, then, therefore, the CRA doesn't get into a negotiation, because it's already established for how the plat or the SDP is moving forward. So they utilize what's agreed upon, and that's the 3 percent contribution or physical improvement that's going to be contained. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So we really have eliminated the arguments or the he said, she said, or the disagreements, the gray area of how much these fees should be? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm concerned why -- we're basing the fees on estimate -- or opinion of probable cost, right? And the county doesn't have any estimating professionals on board, and the person providing the opinion of probable cost works for the developer, right? MR. BOSI: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it just -- and I've done that for years and years and years, and probable cost is there. And the owner says, I'd like it down here. And it's not an issue of ethics. It's an issue of you don't know, so your range is much wider. It just seems like a moving target to base a fee on. That's all. MS. DeJOHN: You know, procedurally it's a -- we settled on this as the best fit for assigning a value at time of an application because, obviously, you can't come after the fact. You can't wait for the whole development to happen and then come chasing, you know, a developer down asking for a check. This would be the timing at which the applicant is coming into the system, already defining a set of costs that they assume for the development of their project. You know, putting pen to paper, writing a check for an application fee and writing a check for the units that they have been -- that they've requested and are being rewarded from a density standpoint. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So there's no -- it would be too difficult to have an adjustment like Karl was suggesting after the costs are all in and -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can do an adjustment, which won't work for staff, but you can do an adjustment. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 11 of 23 COMMISSIONER SHEA: What I worry about is -- I mean, no offense to staff, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: Understanding the adjustments go both ways. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What? MR. KLATZKOW: Understanding that adjustments go both ways. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: But it's not uncommon I put into contracts that there will be an adjustment at the end of the day. You know, you true up what the numbers are, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, at least then you're dealing with facts rather than a crystal ball, and then -- MR. BOSI: What I would say is on a calendar-year basis, the county processes hundreds of SDPs and PPLs, and it has not seemed to have been an issue with our engineering reviewing team or the development community in terms of arriving upon what that probable cost is. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What do you do with it? Why do you -- other than a situation like this, what difference does a probable cost make to the county? MR. BOSI: That's the fee that they utilize to establish the application fee, so the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- professionals who have to provide the inspections, who have to go on site and provide the individual reviews of the plans and all the activity that take place before the project could be CO'ed can be compensated for that type of activity. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's your recoup of your administrative costs to process? MR. BOSI: Yes, yes, and that's simply what it is. It's trying to estimate the scope of the project. As the scope gets bigger, the cost is larger and, therefore, the activities become more cost consuming. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: Thank you, sir. For the record, Jamie French, deputy head for Growth Management. Mr. Shea, or Commissioner Shea, thank you for the question. But much like within your International Code Council, you've got a set of charts that's adopted and recognized by the State of Florida. Typically what happens is that that opinion of probable cost, it really relates directly to the complexity of the project. So as we start to look at the more expensive the costs, not necessarily at the materials, but the labor and those things that are associated with the project, it makes it much more complex on both the review and on the inspection. So the -- even though it's not systematic in such a way where one project gets one inspection. One project may receive hundreds of inspections. And because we are a fee-based service, in other words, the services that we provide are enterprise fund based, about 90 percent of our budget is based off of the fees we collect. So there's no direct impact to the taxpayers of Collier County. So all of that development, then, is passed on to he or she who benefits. So it would go back on to the development of that property. So that's really the way those fees are based. And that's why the opinion of probable cost, it's not contractually bound. We don't get into the contracts, but we rely on that engineer to sign and seal and certify that the opinion of probable cost is in relation with the cost of the actual project, as close as it can get. Does that answer your question, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, it doesn't -- yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, hold on. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, this is a different issue here. I mean, you're talking bigger dollars than your administrative fees, I would guess, in dealing with bonuses. MR. KLATZKOW: Correct me if I'm wrong. You guys are essentially charging a fee for the increased density, and that fee is going to be going to these public art funds or whatever, right? MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) 5.A.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 12 of 23 MR. KLATZKOW: So we're charging a fee, all right, and it's not an insignificant fee. How many of these -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Fee for services. MR. KLATZKOW: How many of these are we going to be doing? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, based upon -- we had 388 units that were allocated to a pool 20 years ago, and 122 still remain; the frequency is not overly burdensome. MR. KLATZKOW: So one or two a year. MR. BOSI: If the CRA is having a good year. MR. KLATZKOW: So truing it up at the end of the project -- I mean, it's not a bad idea, and it's certainly not going to be much of an imposition if you're only doing one or two projects every 10 years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think what our County Attorney said a little while ago, though, if I'm running the numbers correctly, if you build -- because I mean, things are getting, you know, expensive everywhere. If you build 10 units, a million bucks a unit, that's a $10-million project; 5 percent is $500,000. MS. DeJOHN: This isn't a -- excuse me. This is Laura DeJohn. This isn't a calculation of the whole project cost. It's a calculation at time of site development work, which is a calculation of the land development cost, not the vertical construction cost. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, wow. So this is a whole different game than I'm thinking. Is that -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, what I was -- yeah, just to -- yeah, I guess me, too. It was just -- what the County Attorney's saying is we may be giving money back at the end of these projects if we're -- so I was kind of getting a sense of -- if we're truing them up at the end. MR. KLATZKOW: How much money are we talking about? COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what I'm trying to figure out. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not very much if you're just talking about the land development costs. Significantly less than we think. MS. DeJOHN: That's right. Let's think back to the baseline right now. Right now projects are being voted upon and granted up to 97 units at a time just based on a zoning approval, period. So a developer comes in, and because this pool exists, he or she walks away with 97 new units on that site that were not normally allowed -- MR. KLATZKOW: Every executive summary that goes to the Board of County Commissioners has a fiscal impact. What is the fiscal impact of this? MS. DeJOHN: Well, the -- there's no -- well, there's administrative function of taking a calculation that's already being made and then assigning it to -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to need a fiscal impact when this goes to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. DeJOHN: If you're talking about economic impact to the private sector, we have examples. MR. KLATZKOW: No. What's the fiscal impact of this program? How much is the county going to collect? And don't tell me you're doing a program and you have no idea how much you're going to collect because I'll say, then why the hell are you doing the program? MR. BOSI: There's no program that we're going to collect. Each individual project is based upon the scope and the size of that project, and that would -- that determines how much of the engineer -- the total project costs. MR. KLATZKOW: But you're doing this to fund the -- you're doing this for the CRA's public art fund. MR. BOSI: I think we need to separate something. We utilized an accepted -- we're utilizing an approach that the county currently utilizes for every SDP and every PPL. We utilize 5.A.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 13 of 23 that with every single one that comes through, and we base the application fees upon the engineer's probable costs. We utilize that same process to say, okay, that's what we're going to allocate and attach to the increased density that these applicants are requesting. That's what we're doing. MR. KLATZKOW: But what's -- what -- why are we doing this? We're doing this to fund public arts, right? MR. BOSI: Public benefit is the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. How much are we talking about? MR. BOSI: I couldn't give you a -- MR. KLATZKOW: Deborah, you're the one pushing this. How much are you looking to get out of it? MS. FORESTER: Hello. For the record, Deborah Forester, CRA director. So the idea here was that we felt that the density pool was a benefit for creating other improvements we needed from the Bayshore CRA. If you look at your TDR program, if a private sector is selling a unit to someone else to move it from where there is density allowed to another area, you would have a value. The county doesn't calculate those values. So what we were trying to accomplish in this program is to make it fair and reasonable for a developer who was seeking our units and at the same time getting those units that there would be another benefit to the CRA either as a public art fund or as an improvement such as improving the main street of Bayshore, Bayshore Drive. We want to improve those landscaping, lighting, all those kinds of features. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, Ms. Forester. MS. FORESTER: As an example -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think anyone doubts the worthiness of the project. What we're all, I think, looking for is something to hang our hat on quantitatively. MS. FORESTER: Okay. So I'm going to give you some examples. So we wanted to look at this to see what this would mean. So if you take the Mattamy Homes development, who did receive density bonus previously, at a fourplex, their declared value was $1,068,480. If they had received approval for us at, I think, six units, they would have been providing us 6.4 percent, which would have been $68,382. So for that fourplex, that would be their contribution. Now, there's a number of fourplexes in that development. And so then the more that they don't -- density bonuses they would receive, they would pay more, but that would be, like, baseline for a fourplex. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So this -- thank you, and this is very helpful. I've got Commissioner Vernon lit up, and then do you want to speak, Commissioner Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know that I have a question. I just -- I guess that helps me a lot, the last thing you said, because I know it's just an example, and every project's different. But it's by -- in that example they're paying six-tenths of 1 percent of the project cost, roughly. MS. DeJOHN: Project value. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Project value. Okay. I was just trying to think that through rather than my example is half a million. So it's much -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: We should use the term "site development cost value." It's not the project value. The site development's probably 10 percent of it. So we're dealing in one tenth of the numbers that we were thinking that the bonus was in. COMMISSIONER FRY: What I'm taking away is that this is gravy. This is an enhancement -- an additional enhancement that gives funds to the CRA to perform improvements that might not be available otherwise, and I applaud that. A math question. So let's say that we know that Camden Landing used 97 units. What would their -- what percentage would they have -- what would be the calculation for the 5.A.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 14 of 23 percentage? I'm just trying to follow this 10-plus bonus units and how does that actually calculate out. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Fourteen percent, if I understand this. COMMISSIONER FRY: So -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait. I don't know that I'm right. MR. BOSI: You are. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just -- I'm just trying to follow -- figure it out as I go. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, 5 percent -- and that's for zero, and then 1 percent for each 10, even though you're paying 5 percent for five to nine. I mean, I just would have thought the 5 percent would have covered the first 10. MS. DeJOHN: It does. COMMISSIONER FRY: It does? MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, five plus one for each increment of 10 over. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you'd have 5, and then you'd have 8.7 percent more. So it would be 13.7 percent. MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: A good math teacher. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else want to be heard on this subject? Where are we consensus-wise on the Planning Commission? Is this something we want to change? COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I could ask one more question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Why -- I'm not necessarily objecting to it. Why is it one to four, five to nine, 10 plus? Why isn't it just more of a gradiation for the first five it's 1 percent, for the five through nine, it's .75 percent, for 10 plus it's .5 percent rather than, you know -- I'd be looking at this and may change my mind based on this. Do you see what I'm saying? COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that simpler, Chris? COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's just -- it's just as simple. Both are a little complicated. I think this one's a little bit easier to game it, or trying to game it; make decisions based on this rather than decisions on what you want to do. MS. DeJOHN: Well, I want to throw one more complication to it. We are making that adjustment to what requests can be made at 25 percent of the pool. The language in the GMP already had a nebulous way of describing what could be requested. It said, there's 388 units, and the developer can get 25 percent dash 97 units. Ninety-seven is 25 percent of the whole pool. But as the pool depletes, 97 kept getting out -- so that would mean four projects could get 97 units, and that wasn't probably how the wording meant for when it said 25 percent dash 97 units. I'm just describing that because there won't be -- you know, we'd be lucky if we get the pool up that high again where as many as 90 units could be requested. It's just -- it's not that high anymore, and it's probably just going to incrementally get, you know, a few more units here and there, but the 25 percent ask is never going to be more than 50 units, I would assume. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I was just wondering why you did it this way; not necessarily objecting to it. Just wondering if there's some reasoning. MR. KLATZKOW: What's the rationale? Rather than doing 1 percent per unit, as an example, why did you break it down like this? MS. DeJOHN: Well, the one per four -- one through four has the rationale that we defined that limited density pool situation where four is a number that the limited pool was supposed to be meant to be palatable and achievable by smaller property owners. So that was our baseline, one to four, because it attaches and aligns with that limited pool. The jump -- we did -- we experimented -- we experimented with these creative different add-ons and percentages and arrived at something that seemed understandable. So the increment above the limited pool is at 5 percent. It's a recognizable amount. It's 5.A.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 15 of 23 not, you know, hard to understand. And then the 10-plus was really where the attention was being paid to make sure larger developers getting larger amount of bonus units are paying at an incremental rate for the larger number of units that they may attain. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. That's helpful. I'm in consensus. I think I'm okay with this. I know we spent a while on it, but I understand it better now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it was time well spent. What about you, Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess you probably shouldn't have come today when you're the only one on the agenda so we'll have a lot of questions. But I guess the question is -- and I don't know the -- is is that a fair price for what we're giving away? Now, I realize we aren't increasing in the CRA the density overall, but we are giving that developer something, and he's paying for it in exchange. And he's getting X number of additional units, which makes him -- if I were a developer -- if I were the -- if the developer was me, and now you're coming and asking me to buy some bonus points out of that pool, would I think that that's a fair number? MS. DeJOHN: So this does go to the Development Services Advisory Committee, which I am a member of and is a group who represent the development community. So that's been vetted with that group. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. DeJOHN: And, really, this is a balancing act. I mean, it's zero right now. We're trying to keep the success of the redevelopment area going, so we don't want to be punitive but, like Deborah said, there's a happy medium where the developer gets what he needs, which is units to make his project viable, and the CRA and the public get what they need, which is some return on that reward of the units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Mike. I guess the -- if I were to apply -- I don't know how you make -- I know you probably can, but we pay so many thousand dollars for an additional dwelling unit in the RLSA. How does that compare to what they're paying for an additional dwelling unit? MR. BOSI: That would be the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District through TDRs. We have a price tag that's associated with a TDR, and it's right at about $13,500. My response back would have been -- would be to whether this is cost prohibitive -- would be whether in the future a project is going to seek to utilize it. They will do a market analysis. And if the cost is too prohibitive against the return, they're not going to take part in this incentive program, they're not going to seek additional units, and they would just simply develop with the density that's allocated within their zoning. In comparison, in relationship to I think the price tag that Deb provided from an example, I think it's a little bit less than what the TDR going rate is currently at that 13,5-. But at the end of the day, I can't provide that answer. The market's going to provide the answer as to whether they feel that the cost associated with now seeking the density pool is going to be -- is going to be a value add to their project or if it's going to be -- from a cost-benefit analysis, if it doesn't meet that muster, then they won't be utilizing this program. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And then we could change it later on. MR. BOSI: And then we would -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So why start out low? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. My take on it, and this is very much ballpark, but it helps me mentally think about it, is they're going to pay, in my mind, about 50,000 per million they spend on their projects and, to me, that sounds about right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A million on the dirt part of the project. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I think -- well, maybe I don't understand it. I think 5.A.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 16 of 23 that if they spend about a million, on whatever they spend it on -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: On the site development cost. That's the dirt, moving the dirt around. That's all that you're getting. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, you're right. You're right. You're right. Yeah, but -- okay, okay. Yeah. I'm trying to articulate it, because I was going to say, this seems about right to me, it seems high enough to me, because I was thinking -- maybe I was thinking it was more than it really is. So I'm a little lost, to be honest, because I'm trying to get in my head what the number -- the real numbers are going to be because, I think -- you know, if it were a million, 50,000 on a million, which it sounds like it's not, that that would be about right, because that area's going to get improved while they're improving their property. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if you're doing small projects, they're not going to be 10-, $20 million projects, and the site development's 10 percent of whatever that is -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's not much money. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- so it's not a lot of money. Again, we're asking a lot -- I'm asking a lot of questions. I probably don't have the desire to make any changes because I know there's been a lot of smart people looking at this, but I -- sometimes we get accused of being too developer-friendly, and this would be a case where you use an opinion of probable cost; you only use site development. I feel like we're being too developer-friendly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike? MR. BOSI: Oh, I just wanted to add -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Bosi. I thought you'd finished. MR. BOSI: The current rate as of now that's adopted is zero. That's how much it costs right now to participate with the density pool. It's zero. Right now it's zero. So that would probably be -- so any improvement or any change that we're making with this in the 3 percent or the 5 percent or the 5 percent plus 1 percent over the -- with the 10 or over units, that is going to bring in more money for public improvement associated with the mission and the purpose of the Bayshore CRA. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to tell you right now, when this gets to the Board, you better have numbers, because these questions here, the Board is going to have the same questions. Unless you get a significant fiscal impact, estimated cost would be whatever, because this is -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the 322 units or whatever numbers, the two-thirds that are already gone didn't put anything back into the community at all in exchange for the density? MR. BOSI: They put back investment into the community. Remember, for this CRA to be established, there had to be a declaration of blight, a declaration of blight for the area, from an overall perspective. So what the CRA is designed to do is to try to be a catalyst for the infusion of investment for new projects to be developed and improve those conditions. So originally when the CRA was designed, those 388, there wasn't a price tag associated with it because they wanted to -- they wanted to spur development. Now that the CRA has matured, that they've gone -- they've been 20 years within their mission, they've seen improvements, they've seen the area start to lift up, they're seeking to add a little bit more, I think, as the Planning Commission is trying to identify, to bring more improvements to the public realm and to further the mission of the Bayshore CRA. And we take -- and we appreciate this line of questioning, because I think you're right, we will have to have, Jeff, and we will, have to have specific examples of projects that we -- that have been -- that have utilized the density pool, that we know what their opinion of probable costs are. We'll give you the -- we'll have those -- those costs associated with it, and then we can break it down to a per-unit basis of what it would cost, you know, if you're four units or if you're in the five to nine units or if you're above that, what the average unit would cost based upon the -- based upon 5.A.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 17 of 23 those real-world examples. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you're going to have to be careful when you talk to them. You're going back and forth with what the units would cost with just -- what the fee's based on. Your costs are going -- you've got to be really clear what the fee's based on versus the cost per unit, because the cost per unit is all cost in, and the fee is only based on the site development cost. So I'd be very clear when you're talking to the Board of which costs you're talking about. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry and then Commissioner Vernon, please. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I'm inclined to support it as written mostly for the reason of what you said, Paul; a lot of people with a deeper stake than us in this have put a lot of time and effort into analyzing it and coming up with the numbers. And the ultimate goal of this entire thing is realize a vision, an improved vision for the area. And this is -- as I said, I think it's gravy. It's additional funds that wouldn't have been there otherwise. I'm going to assume you've had interaction with the developer community through the development of this plan. What feedback have you gotten from the developers in terms of do you have -- you obviously have the belief they will continue to invest in your area? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's DSAC -- COMMISSIONER FRY: That's DSAC and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and they passed on this. MS. DeJOHN: Right, yeah. I referenced that the Development Services Advisory Committee is made up of the development community, and they weighed in and voted to recommend this. COMMISSIONER FRY: To recommend this. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. And I guess Deborah hasn't had one-on-one developer interactions to vet exact, like, case study projects, but the Development Services Advisory Committee did support this. And the CRA Advisory Board that meets monthly saw this two or three times in a public setting, and it did change through their review. We had a cap -- at first there was a sensitivity like this will scare developers away, so there was a maximum 500,000 price or contribution ascribed here, and that was recommended by the CRA Advisory Board to be removed. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess -- I'm not looking at the specific language, but can I assume that the 10-plus bonus units is more clearly defined in the language than it is -- MS. DeJOHN: Yes, and there is an example given. There's a "for instance," and the math is written into the code. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think some numbers are -- because, as you can tell, I'm just trying to get a number in my head to feel like if it's fair, give some examples. Because based on Paul's clarification, if I do understand it now -- and this is all estimates and everything, but if really it's -- the SDP is 10 percent of the project, so you're talking about maybe 5,000 per million spent by the developer, which seems, you know -- again, I agree, I don't think it's -- you guys have put a lot of time and thought into this, but that almost seems a little low. COMMISSIONER FRY: It doesn't translate to units. If I'm -- correct me if I'm wrong, but if I clear two acres of land and I'm putting a six-story apartment complex up, my site development costs might be the same as if I'm putting up a two-story complex with one-third the units. So it really is not translatable directly to units. It's more -- MS. DeJOHN: It's just a common -- COMMISSIONER FRY: It's more the size of the property is what I'm getting, if it's just the site development costs. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just think -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a great point. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think what Jeff's -- he's right every time. And every 5.A.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 18 of 23 time I come up with -- try to get it in my head, it would be great if you had an example of somebody building three units, somebody building 50 units. What are they going to pay? MS. DeJOHN: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And that would help me a lot, and I assume the Board of County Commissioners, it would help them a lot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Based on -- MS. DeJOHN: We can do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Based on -- if that was accurate, that it's really more based on the size of the property, then the developer really has a much lower cost per unit the more units they build on the same size property, correct? MS. DeJOHN: Well, horizontal development costs in urban settings versus, you know, smaller sites that require a lot of, you know, underground water -- stormwater systems and things like that are going to have variables that are different than a larger site that can do water management without that expense. So, I mean, there are variables here -- and that's why we used -- instead of trying to fit every shape of peg into every shape of hole and try to estimate all types of different types of projects that could be built and assign formulas to that, we used a tried-and-true formula that's already used and familiar to the industry and familiar to the county. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just think the number gets -- as Karl clarified again, and he's right, that the more -- as I think through it, each time I think through it, the number comes down. I think it's going to end up being a fairly small number for the developers, which may be fine, but that's -- going in, I wasn't thinking that at all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the other part is what Karl said, I keep wanting -- that is depending on how you build, whether you build -- how many units -- it's really a function of how many units, and that's what the developer is going to look at. Whatever the cost is, he's going to spread it over the units. So if it's taller and there's more units per acre, but they're all paying on site development costs, which actually may be lower for a taller building, it doesn't seem like it'd be fair. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Maybe SDP's not the right -- that's not the right thing to use. MS. DeJOHN: Well, I think what -- it also does eliminate gamesmanship. I mean, this is a given. You know, the development community should be coming to the CRA and doing the best possible project within the CRA's very strict development standards and regulations and doing the project they think is the best fit and the most -- you know, achieve the most on that site. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. DeJOHN: This comes along as an additional charge in exchange for those units. MR. KLATZKOW: It might be easiest and more transparent just to have a fee. I mean, 1.4 [sic] bonus units is $30,000, five to nine is $50,000. I mean, if you just charged a flat fee, it would be easy for everybody to understand it and very transparent. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And it might eliminate some gamesmanship. MR. KLATZKOW: It would eliminate all gamesmanship. It's a flat fee. Everybody would know what we're talking about. And then if we find that it's not incentivizing people like we can, we could easily modify the fee. COMMISSIONER FRY: So what you're saying, Jeff, I mean, the reward for the developer is the unit. It's the additional units. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So basing the fee on the units, I think, makes the ultimate sense. MR. KLATZKOW: Because that's what you're selling. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I like that idea. MR. BOSI: I think that's a question that Ms. Forester would -- these are amendments for the Bayshore CRA. We are trying to implement the division [sic] of the redevelopment plan, and 5.A.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 19 of 23 we've came up with one strategy -- I would have to defer to the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Forester. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We call that a punt, Mike. MS. FORESTER: This is Deborah Forester. So, you know, I guess the question is how would we value that one unit. You know, if you looked at the TDR provision, which is in the Rural Lands, that's $13,500. That doesn't seem like the right amount, then, to use for an urban density. We don't want to get it too prohibitive. I mean, we want our developers to still come into our area. We want them, though, to be engaged in the other public-realm improvements that we would like to see implemented. And we also recognize that a developer can go and get a Comp Plan amendment and go outside of this density pool, and that can be approved as well, which happened also at Courthouse Shadows and at Camden Landings/Cirrus Pointe. So where they got our 97 units, that wasn't quite enough for them, they also got a Comp Plan amendment. So I think what we want to do is try to start off at something that's reasonable. We don't have a lot of units, 122. Those could go by quickly. But, again, the real point was to start having that conversation that -- you know, in the beginning, we needed developers. We needed to give them those units. But now the market's changed; things are improving. So now we would like to have some return and partnership with them. No gated community. That's another big step for some developers that, at this point in time, don't want to do that. So in addition to that fee, they also have to make sure that they've got a non-gated development. So I think that these fees are reasonable. I think we can get some more examples for the County Commissioners to look at. And I think with the Development Services Committee, they were able to review it, and they also bought into this because, again, we don't want to deter people from coming into the area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Even though I'm the one asking a ton of these questions, I do think that, you know, we've got the person standing right here whose heart and soul's been put into it, and we're kind of trying to give her something she's not asking for, in a sense. So I'm going to vote in favor of this as-is even though I was the one causing a lot of the trouble. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me take the pulse of the rest of the Planning Commission. Is anybody coming in a different direction after the -- I think it's been a great conversation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, it has. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, are you -- where are you leaning -- leaning at this point? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, there's been a lot of smarter people than me. I mean -- and at this point, the bulk of the bonus credits have already been used, so you have to also balance what's fair to the ones that have already, you know, I guess, received them as an incentive to come develop in the community rather than paying for them. So you can't all of a sudden hit these last groups real hard. So I think you have -- I think this represents probably a better completion of the program. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chair, any thoughts? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I was liking the fee thing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like that, too, but -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm not sure if it would be fair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: My impression, after a few years in seeing the Bayshore items come through, is that there's a tremendous amount of organization, vision, strategy that's been exercised in that area. The transformation, I think, has been striking. So I tend to just defer to the 5.A.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 20 of 23 work that's gone into this. They feel like it's a win for them. It's gravy for them. So I will support it as written. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. DeJohn, back to you. MS. DeJOHN: All right. We are on the final element of the Land Development Code amendment, and we mentioned this earlier. The one missing piece in the Land Development Code was that there was no declared expiration when units were allocated to a project, and now we are declaring that if unused after five years of being allocated, then they do return back to the pool. So that's formalized. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that is certainly at the very heart of these proposals, and I think that the replenishment concept is a very good one and it will, I hope, serve its intended purposes. No one else is signaling at this point. I have at least one other question. And maybe while I'm asking mine others can think if they have some as well. And I'm also looking at the clock. I think we're going to be done with this before 3:30, but, if not, 3:30 is when we need to have a midafternoon break. So my first question ties in with other issues that have been before us and I think are still pending. And this comes in Section 10.D on Page 54 of 61 of this first agenda packet. It's also Page 4 of the free-standing materials from staff. And D is captioned "evaluation criteria," and it says, "The application shall be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner or CCPC for compliance with the following standards of approval," and then there's some standards listed. So we've got pending before us -- and I don't know exactly where it is. I was going to raise it in new business, but we can either deal with it then or now. But we've got an administrative code amendment pending that maybe could be heard on the 16th of December if staff is ready for it at that time, because right now there's nothing else on the agenda for that slot. And at that point we could deal with those other issues we had writ large such as NIM requirements and the like that we all articulated some months ago and notes were taken but then wrap into that criteria for such cases where it says "Hearing Examiner or CCPC" so that there are standards for staff to apply -- objective standards in deciding whether a matter goes to the HEX or comes to us. And Chairman Strain had a solid sixth sense about that. Of course, he was also the HEX. But he seemed to know -- and I never took issue with the judgments that he made -- whether it should be a HEX matter or a Planning Commission matter. But now we've got a separate HEX, separate from the Planning Commission. It seems to me that we could roll into the administrative code, because there are a number of places in there that say it's going to be the Hearing Examiner or the CCPC, to include those standards. And that doesn't need to require a change in this language as long as we made a mental note -- physical note that we're going to come back with these administrative code changes, and we're going to include criteria such as the size of a project, the controversial nature of the project, and other things so that staff knows whether this should go to the HEX or the Planning Commission. Now -- so what I'm saying is that if we can get some consensus that we're going to be hearing that administrative code, and that can be included in it, I'm not going to propose a change to this language because this is only one of a number of places where the either/or needs to be supported by objective criteria, I think. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, we have, on January 20th, your second meeting in January, is whether we tentatively have that administrative code to be brought back for the Planning Commission's review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I assume that you've considered the fact that you have nothing on the agenda for the 16th? MR. BOSI: We have two -- we have three things. We have a PUD rezone, and we have 5.A.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 21 of 23 an LDC amendment related, Cruz Road. We also have LDC amendments related to murals within Bayshore, as well as a scrivener's error amendment. So there's three items. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi, this was not on your looking ahead, or it was? COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's talking December 16th. You're talking January. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then here's where I'm making my mistake. There was a meeting, I guess, coming up in January where there's nothing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, January 16th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the meeting you're talking about? MR. BOSI: The meeting we have for the administrative code is the second meeting in January, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Okay. Then I stand corrected. Thank you very much. I'm with you. So I don't have a suggested change, then, for 10D because we're -- if staff will bring back something with those criteria in it. MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And there was a time, I think, when the County Attorney and I and Hearing Examiner Dickman had had a three-way conversation about whether we were going to get together and try to write something up. I don't need to be a part of that. And I think someone could supply a couple of sentences to deal with it appropriately. And so I guess that -- that's being teed up for January, so I'm satisfied with that. All right. Let me see if I have others, and then we can move on, if not. Those are all the -- those are all the questions I have. So is staff's presentation completed? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. MR. BOSI: And that was -- that was the consultant presenting for the CRA. We do have Parker Klopf from our Comprehensive Planning section who did the Comp Plan review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BOSI: I know it's somewhat confusing. Mr. Johnson did the review from the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's make that record then. MR. KLOPF: Parker Klopf, senior planner, Comp Planning Department. I did the Comp Plan review. Staff was supportive of all the changes as presented by Laura, and we suggest approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. Thank you, sir. MR. KLOPF: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I think it would be appropriate for us to ask if there's any public comment. And, Mr. Youngblood, do we have any? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have two registered speakers. One is present with us today, Al Schantzen. And then we will go online to an online speaker, Karen Beatty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Schantzen, you're recognized, sir. MR. SCHANTZEN: Thank you. For the record, Al Schantzen, Bayshore CRA member. I totally support this. We've been watching developers come in and request and get, because that's what they can do, get these bonus density points, and I just sit there and choke that we don't get nothing for the CRA or the residents. So this has been a long time coming. And when I first seen it started happening, and the director started working and getting this to this point, and I'm really happy to see it finally come to fruition so that -- however, if, from what I heard making the sausage today, we can get more, that would be nice. I mean, we would appreciate that, because the public realm isn't something that the 5.A.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 22 of 23 board got into the nuts and bolts of public realm. We're basing that on the rest of the Land Development Code. But just as a point I'd like to make here, and it's in reference to animals and what we have going on at Domestic Animal Control. If as these people make these developments, they'd make their deeds less restrictive so that these bigger developments can have animals, large/small cats, that would help our animal population that's in domestic animal control. So if there's any influence the Planning Commission can put now or later in that realm, the animals would greatly appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Of course, indenture restrictions are strictly private. MR. SCHANTZEN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your point is well made, and you've given a public voice to it. And also, on behalf of the Planning Commission, I want to thank you for your work on the board. We appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Who's next, please, Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Ms. Beatty has declined to speak, so that is our only registered speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll close the public comment portion, then, of the hearing, and we'll turn to our deliberation and vote. Anyone wish to be heard? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I've deliberated -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- and am ready to vote if somebody's ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Still on Page 53, with the abbreviations and the BO and GTO, so if we approve this, we're approving that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. I think we ought to facilitate our ability to come back on that question if we don't approve of it, if we ask for a change or recommend a change, then I think that would -- that should relate back to the action we take on this, if that works for staff. MR. BOSI: And staff would suggest that you can base your approval conditional upon any changes that may be recommended related to the acronyms provided for in the evening petition discussion. And so it could be -- it could be self-amending, sort of speaking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney, I'm not -- does this work? MR. KLATZKOW: We'll get it all fixed up before it goes to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's great. All right. So the Chair would entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would make a motion to approve the GMPA and the LDC portions of this item with the changes that have been stipulated. I believe the word "contiguous" was added to several sections. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: In addition to the reserving the right to retroactively apply any changes made this evening to the language to these items. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon, you're signaling. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I was just going to say to you folks who are there in the thick of it, you know, you mentioned making the sausage, we'd like more. So I think you heard the tone of our thought process. So if this goes really well and you think, you know, maybe 5.A.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 23 of 23 you should be charging developers a little bit more, I think we -- I'd be open to that based on what I think the numbers are, because I think the numbers are pretty low, and it's a great start. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is indeed. All right. Thank you for those words. And I'd like to see if there's anything that I need to say under new business. I think I've actually -- or old business. I think I've already covered this. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We didn't vote yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We didn't vote? All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you for keeping me straight here. Okay. Oh, the only other thing that I wanted to raise -- and it's just going to take me a minute -- we talked about the administrative code that's coming back in the second meeting in January, and it's going to contain criteria for the Planning Commission or HEX hearing. It's going to contain the additional points that we raised some months ago when we talked about this having to do with NIMs, I believe, and some other things. And you-all, I'm sure, have those notes somewhere. So all that is -- that's good, and I'm satisfied that that's covered. And, therefore, unless there's new business or additional public comment -- I'm assuming there's no public comment. So without objection, we will adjourn -- or we'll stand in recess, the first session, and then we'll reconvene for the second session at five minutes after 5:00. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:23 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPC_formatted 2pm (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 1 of 17 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 18, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.d Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 2 of 17 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Welcome to the evening or second session of our November 18, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. All right. The only matter before us for this evening is PL20210001222. It's the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area LDCA, or second one of the day, that changes some names, adds some prohibited uses, and adds and changes certain building standards and, as a result of some of those differences from the ones earlier this afternoon, it must be -- must take place in the evening, and so that's why we're here, those of us who are here. And so without further ado, we'll turn it over to staff for the presentation, please, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner with Zoning. Before Laura comes up to give a presentation, we discussed what the name of the zoning district would be from before, for anyone who's listening. We were discussing the prospect of renaming the BMUD to the BO zoning district. I would say that staff recommends that it be renamed not BO but BZO. So it would be Bayshore Zoning Overlay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How does that sound to you, Vice Chair? Better than BO, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, so what -- on Page 3 of the -- of the packet, it says Bayshore Overlay District. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So on Page 3 of the -- actually, the Packet Page 6, instead of it being BO, Bayshore Overlay District, it would be Bayshore -- it would be BZO, Bayshore Zoning Overlay District. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How's by you? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. So then everything's going to change. MR. JOHNSON: And then everything else would change in this PL, this Land Development Code amendment, that's before you right now as well as any instance of the BO in the previous one that you reviewed earlier in PL -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In all the maps, because they're all different anyway? MR. JOHNSON: And I wanted to bring that up. So in the -- in Exhibit A of this 5.A.d Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 3 of 17 particular Land Development Code amendment, you'll find that there are a lot of maps, and so all the highlighted areas, instead of it being BO, it would be BZO, and then whatever the base zoning district is. So all those maps would change. And because we have those maps -- I wanted to kind of go over just a few changes that, you know, I wanted to read into the record. Hopefully you don't have any issues with them. They're all very minor, insubstantial, or non-substantive. On Page 3, Packet Page 6, Line 30, we would remove any reference to the map that was proposed in LDC Section 4.02.16.I. We're going to -- we're going to delete the map that's on page -- let me find it. I think it's 30 -- 50-something -- 56, starts on Page 56, capital letter I. And then on Page 57, we would not have a map. We would rely on the zoning atlas maps to identify the different zoning districts. So that's, in our opinion, something that shouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, we're proposing a correction on Page 9. On Line 15, it would read, prohibited uses. These uses are prohibited, comma, except that those existing as of effective date of ordinance, so forth and so on. So we would want to add the word "those." And on Page 11, again, on Line No. 8, we would remove the reference to the map that would have been in LDC Section 4.02.16.I. On Page 32 -- and I'll try to be very quick -- on Line No. 28, lowercase a, it calls out the minimum lot size. We already have a reference for the minimum lot size on Page 10, in Packet Page 13. So this is not needed here in this instance. If we had it here in this instance, it would apply to both the BZO as well as the GTOs, and so that wasn't the intent, so we want to remove that. On Page 34 -- and I only have two more pages to talk about -- Line 34, we would, again, remove the reference to the map at LDC Section 4.02.16.I. And, lastly, on Page 56, that was the removal of the map, and the reference to it on 56 and 57. And I was remiss in not mentioning on the previous amendment there was an instance where it said "Bayshore Development Plan." That would be known as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan, and the area is known as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area. So those are just some housekeeping measures that I wanted to just put on the record. Hopefully you don't have an issue with it. I'll be happy to answer questions regarding what I just mentioned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Eric, you renamed Bayshore Overlay to Bayshore Zoning Overlay, BZO. What about the Gateway Triangle; are you going to make that BTZO, or is it remaining GTO? MR. JOHNSON: We propose just keep it GTO. No change at all. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That one also says district, Gateway Triangle Overlay District. MR. JOHNSON: And so the acronym -- or abbreviation would be GTO. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why is one a zoning overlay and the other one not? MR. JOHNSON: Well, they're both subdistricts within the redevelopment. I guess they're two different zoning overlays, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think what the commissioner's suggesting is maybe for consistency you might want to put the word zoning in the Gateway Triangle as well. MR. JOHNSON: All right. So BZO and GTZO. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would make it consistent at least. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Am I correct what you were asking? COMMISSIONER FRY: Completely correct. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. I'm completely thankful. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 4 of 17 All right. So I'm going to allow Ms. DeJohn to come up if there aren't any questions for me regarding what we just talked about. Great. Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: Thank you and good evening. Laura DeJohn with Johnson Engineering. I'm a certified planner, and I am here on behalf of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA office. Also with me is Deborah Forester, who is the head of that office, if you have any questions for her. We are discussing a separate PL number this evening after meeting earlier today at 2:00. This evening's item is a general set of Land Development Code amendments that, again, are being instituted because the CRA is subject to a redevelopment plan. That redevelopment plan was updated in 2019 through a BCC adoption of the plan. The BCC did direct staff to go through the process of making changes to the Land Development Code as a result of that plan update. So because of that Board direction on July 9th, 2019, we are now here in front of you talking about these general Land Development Code changes. The area we're talking about is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area that extends from Davis Boulevard on the north down to the end of Bayshore Drive on the south. And just to give kind of general characteristics of where Gateway Triangle area is, it's north of Tamiami Trail towards Davis Boulevard, and then the Bayshore area that we'll be talking about is to the south of Tamiami Trail down Bayshore. This set of proposed changes has been through extensive public involvement. Again, back in July the CRA Advisory Board was apprised of these proposed changes. We engaged with stakeholders, specifically commercial property owners in October 2020, and about a year ago the CRA Advisory Board considered these amendments. There were changes they suggested. We came back in January 2021 with their changes, and this was recommended to move forward and then heard by the DSAC, Development Services Advisory Committee, as required, throughout the summer. You know, number one, we are seeking to rename the overlay zoning district names. There is limitation being proposed on heavy commercial uses in the Bayshore area. That was part of the public involvement process. We learned that the Gateway/Triangle area was not -- did not have the appetite for controlling heavy commercial uses there, so this is a proposal just -- that affects the BZO, and transitions to accommodate the relationship of any heavy commercial uses in proximity to residential uses is acknowledged through some appearance standards that are also being proposed. Mixed-use project standards have been tweaked because that's a unique process and type of project in the Bayshore area that's being updated. And single-family home architecture standards are being introduced to the area as well. Finally, allowing swale enclosures in this type of urban walkable context that is being promoted in the Bayshore area is something that we have addressed extensively through coordination with staff and updates in this code. I'm going to skip this slide. We've talked about the naming of the district. And prohibited uses being proposed. This is, again, an extension of the planning effort that occurred. And the adoption of the 2019 plan talked about the transitions going on in this Bayshore area since it was established in 2000 to now. The effort is aimed at making sure that certain types of uses that just don't belong in a walkable residential area will be limited from being established in, like, any new establishment of these uses going forward. So I'm going to tell you exactly what those are. They're uses that are allowed in underlying C-4 zoning, which are boiler repair shops; something we don't have much of in our area. And then in the C-5 district, which allows 183 different commercial uses, we're talking about prohibiting certain ones: Equipment rental and leasing of portable toilets, mobile home dealers, mini and self-storage warehousing, RV dealers, truck rental and leasing, utility trailer and 5.A.d Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 5 of 17 RV rental, and then again, boiler cleaning, boiler repair type uses. So those were identified after a thorough screening of all the 183 other uses allowed and identified as not consistent with the themes that are being -- you know, the Bayshore area is trying to promote as an arts district. Furthermore, there is the prohibition on any new outdoor display, outdoor sales, or outdoor storage that's, you know, of large-scale nature, manufactured products, raw or finished materials, boats or vehicles on small lots. So lots less than 30,000 square feet, which was, again, vetted based on typical lot sizes in the area. The idea here is to prohibit these new heavier, more intense uses in the Bayshore area only. Now, appearance standards are also being coupled, you know. So once we address kind of the most offensive type of uses being prohibitive, we're also putting forth some appearance standards for less offensive uses that just need to be, you know, established in a more cohesive way with the neighborhood. So already, the code establishes these -- the set of standards that applies to boat yards and marinas. They're considered kind of the bigger more, you know, active type facilities and, therefore, there were restrictions already in the code, listed on the screen, on making sure those were compatible with the neighborhood. We're applying those standards across that set of uses that I've described already, the outdoor display, outdoor sales, outdoor storage, manufactured products, raw or finished materials, boats or vehicles. So, basically, controlling how much of the site it can occupy, how much is in view along the front of the street, and locating those activities not forward of a building so that, again, walkability is being more promoted, and limits on the height of materials being displayed. The buffering is addressed in that section of the code as well. Again, same buffering standards that was typically applied to marinas and boat yards. We're just extending it to some other similar type of activities. Now, the proposed architectural standards that are proposed to apply to single-family homes, this is an evolution of some standards that have been applied already to a project within the Bayshore area. There were a number of key criteria because the code already alludes to having certain type of characteristics in the Bayshore area, like Florida vernacular architecture. So this is a way to help itemize out what it means when the code describes Florida vernacular architecture. And the system setup is quite easy to meet. I mean, there's 30 elements listed in the code. Some of them are worth two points. Some of them are worth a single point. And altogether, six points is the goal. So out of 30 elements, for example, these higher rating elements here on the screen are positioning your garage to be side loaded, you know, so you're not just facing the street with the garage. That would get two points. The remaining single point opportunities are having dormers, having awnings, measurement -- like overhangs, finished soffits, window trim. They're just guiding points for home development that most achieve already. We're just creating the standard in the code so that it can be achieved by all homes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask a question? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe you said this and I wasn't paying strict attention, and I'll apologize if that's the case. But could you identify where these criteria came from or -- MS. DeJOHN: There was a -- I don't know the name of the project but, Deborah, do you want to describe that? I'll have Deborah describe the source. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. FORESTER: Hi. Deborah Forester, CRA director. The original beginning of this list came from a settlement agreement we have with the developer in the Bayshore area. He purchased 15 lots from the county a number of years ago, and we needed to enforce the 5.A.d Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 6 of 17 development of those lots. And we wanted to put some design criteria to that, so we came up with a checklist. And so that began the list, and then we also -- our project manager, Tammy Scott, has an architectural background, so she also helped to add to the list. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. So there was a settlement that caused you to develop these points. Did they originate in, like, a textbook or -- MS. FORESTER: Well, I think a number of these we did -- we know what's being built, and we know what the community likes, so a number of those simply apply to this list. So, you know, having decorative railing at your front porch, having a front porch. These are your typical elements that would help with walkability in the community. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we go back to that list? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How did you decide on six total points? It seems -- with all those options and so many of them are so routine, it's going to sound -- it seems like you could ask for a lot more points. MS. DeJOHN: And understood. I mean, again, this was something that was vetted. There's a variety of home types and conditions within the CRA. So there's some pretty high-end homes going up who will check a lot of these boxes, and then there's some areas that aren't as affluent. So the goal was to, you know, kind of have a level playing field and -- like, as soon as you put into code what the targets are, it helps everyone. You know, it helps the ones who are maybe doing these naturally, and then it helps those who might need, you know, the help to realize that adding a decorative shutter -- windows contributes to the appearance of the home. And so the goal was to not, again, be punitive, not make a difficult bar to be living in the CRA but to have some standards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: This topic of having swale enclosures really became the biggest excitement of the code-writing effort. You can see in the picture, here's one of the examples of the homes going up on Jeepers Street off of Bayshore, and this is a trend. There's a single developer who's putting up a lot of new homes in this area. And the style has really been popular. They've been very successful, and the approach to placing these homes on the lot and designing the access in the driveway has resulted in creating yard in the front where it currently swales are along these older streets. And so the design preferred by the CRA and by the developer is to enclose those swales, kind of capture that land area, and move the water through pipes instead of in open swales. And to achieve that is not a simple task when it comes to county permitting and other permitting jurisdictions. So where we ended up is a set of standards in the code that just say, upon adoption of a -- in a stormwater management plan for the vicinity through South Florida Water Management District permitting, then these can be done in the Bayshore area. And it's going to be a contributing factor because, like, stormwater is a big deal in Bayshore, so by applying Water Management District criteria, there can be not these one-by-one improvements but maybe some more coordinated improvements in the area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, and then Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question on the swales. What size are they, typically? I know they vary depending on the amount of flow and everything. But I worry more about the safety of a pipe like that, that -- for animals and, you know, different things like that. Is that creating another problem that you didn't have with swales? 5.A.d Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 7 of 17 MS. DeJOHN: I know the design being shown here -- I mean, that's going through the engineering permitting process. So they're meeting the standards for the design of the culvert in the -- but I think, to your point, the goal of what we thought to be a simple fix, which was to be more lenient and allow enclosure of swales in the Bayshore area because of the goals we're talking about for a walkable community, instead we had to take a step back from that and work into this strategy a more holistic approach where there's going to have to be a design that accommodates, you know, what's upstream, what's downstream, and the site itself. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, when you enclose things, you usually can create a safety problem. I can see a two-year-old crawling in that pipe and you not knowing he's in there, and then you get a rainstorm. Just having an open-ended enclosed swale scares me. MS. DeJOHN: It's a traditional design. I mean, even the older -- like, you can see in this picture in the background there's an older driveway as well. So, again, we're solving the problem by not continuing this one-off solution because it was complicating -- it was very complicated in the permitting process to achieve this. Well, the solution has been to make it codified that an area-wide plan needs to be in place. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a design detail for it that the county puts out? MS. DeJOHN: The county does have swale enclosure typicals. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Could they consider adding a grating to that, to the standard detail? MS. DeJOHN: Let me just refer you to -- so we are -- as part of this code amendment, Chapter 110 of the Code of Ordinances, which is specific to construction in public rights-of-way, refers to the standards that apply to swale/culvert design. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would it be fair to assume that safety's going to be addressed in the final drawings? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if it's not in the code, it won't be. In other words, that right there doesn't have any grating on it, any protection for access. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's certainly -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: And if that's the standard detail, they're all going to look like that. MS. DeJOHN: No, this is a picture. This is not -- this is not a standard. This is an illustration to show the reason that we're even talking about it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But it's -- somebody designed it and built it? Did they design it and built it to the county's standard? MR. BOSI: Stormwater Management has to sign off on each one of these projects. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And is safety an integral part of their considerations? MR. BOSI: They're part of general purpose (indiscernible) government, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So who approved that one right there? MR. BOSI: A member of Stormwater staff. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I would challenge you that it's not safe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, in fairness, we can't see whether there's grating in there. It appears there isn't, but we don't know. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Correct. MS. DeJOHN: And, again, we're actually elevating the conditions of the code. This is why we're talking about the situation, because this was happening. And from the pressure of the development community is let me do my design the way I want to get the house built the way I want. And the county's position has been we need a better plan orchestrated to how this all gets implemented. So I think everyone's concerns are being addressed, because there will have to be a plan in the implementation of this, and design standards go hand in hand with developing a plan. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 8 of 17 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I'm just -- I don't know the county, but most communities, these have a standard detail that you would design it to for things like this that are very common. MS. DeJOHN: They are, and they're not in the Land Development Code, but we could get that for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we're a little bit handicapped in an evening meeting; we can't pick up the phone and have somebody from Stormwater come over here. But it's fair to say, certainly on my part and Commissioner Shea's and others, I'm sure, we all wouldn't want to be approving something that is going to create a safety problem, and so, you know, somehow I think we'd like a strong statement. Maybe we had that from Mr. Bosi, that considerations to protect animals and small children are going to be an integral part of this, and there's not going to be an approval of something that is unsafe in any respect. MR. BOSI: Our Stormwater Department would have an obligation to take safety into consideration in terms of the signing off on any swale that would be proposed. So I'm confident to be able to say to you that safety has been incorporated as part of the review process that Stormwater will employ when reviewing these individual swale enclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That may be as much as we can do this evening. Your point is well taken, to be sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I would ultimately like to see a standard written, not just leaving -- it's still subjective. Safety comes into consideration is not the same as saying the inlet should be covered and protected. CHAIRMAN FRYER: True. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you go to the City of Philadelphia and you pull one of those out, they'll have a detail, they'll show you the bar size on the grating and everything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And there may be something like that in place in Stormwater Management. We just don't know. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, exactly. MR. BOSI: I'm pretty confident that they have a design spec towards which it has to be designed to. I just don't have that available. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm sure they do, too. I apologize. I didn't want to -- but I did want to make a point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's a point well made. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the danger that you are concerned about a result of the extended pipe length because of the covered swale, or is it simply the fact that the culverts are open on each end? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Open on each end. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I live in the Estates area. There are tens of thousands of culverts that are not barred in the Estates area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not what we wanted to hear. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, just in my neighborhood, 100 of them -- 200 of those in my one street, and none of them -- none of them are covered. So I think that -- now, they are shorter. They only span the driveway and then the other end of the culvert. So instead of being 50 feet, it's only 15 or 20 feet, but... COMMISSIONER SHEA: It gets compounded by the length, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: The distance? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I -- MR. FRENCH: Thank you. For the record, Jamie French. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I hope you can bring us comfort, Mr. French. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 9 of 17 MR. FRENCH: Thank you. These -- so we follow our right-of-way handbook, and these are -- what's really important to this is that that stormwater's able to pass through that new -- that area of development. They are open on each end no matter what. So unless you've actually got a stormwater plan or design that you would take through a Site Development Plan, these subdivided neighborhoods, we all follow the right-of-way handbook, and so there would be a requirement. In this particular case, this does allow for some on-street parking or some better usage of parking that's going to allow for that water to continue to travel versus people that typically go back and they fill in the stormwater ditch or they may decide to park something there after it's been constructed and a CO. But this is just a different -- different design that would allow for that water to be able to continually flow. And it would be designed, and it would be approved through our right-of-way permitting process. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you talking -- you're hitting on one of my questions which is it looks to be a semipervious parking area in the front. Are you talking about the percolation of the water from the surface to get down, or is there a continuous pipe underneath that that is sealed? MR. FRENCH: That's a continuous pipe that's open on both ends. That's what we would refer to as GO blocking. So we're -- it actually offers some soil stability to be able to park a vehicle on the grass. So it's like on-grass parking. But as you can see, it's almost like a honeycomb that -- they'll use plastics, they'll use concrete or some sort of asbestos type -- well, not asbestos, but a construction type material that allows for soil stability in that area. But that is a continuous pipe that runs from -- I don't know if you can see it -- from here that would come all the way across to this area there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does it accept water in the top through holes in the top of the pipe? Is it corrugated? MR. FRENCH: No. There would be no percolation. Not like a French drain. That's a corrugated pipe all the way through. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're losing -- that area no longer can accept any runoff? MR. FRENCH: Compared to this area here? No, it still takes the runoff. What it does is that it channels the water -- it holds it within that pipe and moves it along. COMMISSIONER FRY: It channels it to the edges? MR. FRENCH: Sure. And so, essentially, all you've done there is you've created an impervious surface area here. Rather than holding water there, it's going to simply hold it in the pipe. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Are we looking at -- I mean, I guess, what if you had multiple homes that have closed off their swales like this; would you, then, not see any of these culverts if adjacent homes had the same treatment? Would you, then, not see these open culverts with the pipes? MR. FRENCH: It would depend on the engineering design. But in some of your Site Development Plans you have that already. I mean, I could point out a handful of car dealerships that it's all underwater -- it's all underground baffling that's actually pipes that are holding water under a big parking lot that you think is -- you've created so much impervious surface. They've also created storage underneath of that development. So that all goes through the design criteria that is looked at by our Engineering/Stormwater staff. It would be all of the -- all of the disciplines that would typically review these site plans, much like -- no different than a housing site. They would still go through that design, and they would have to show how they're channeling and holding their stormwater on site. And that's also a FEMA criteria is that they can't push their water off onto the neighbor. They have to mitigate their water on, you know -- and I hear Ray talking about the Estates. But same thing with any of these lots. We have to show how they're retaining their water on that site as they introduce impervious area. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 10 of 17 COMMISSIONER FRY: But, theoretically, you could have many homes in a row where there are no visible culverts and they still have found a way -- they've engineered a way that the water runoff is managed through pipes that are underneath enclosed swales? MR. FRENCH: Or it could be an inverted runoff. It could be curb and gutter along the curb. That exists. That exists all throughout, I'm going to say, the United States. It certainly exists all throughout the county, especially in many of these Site Development Plans or these Planned Unit Developments that have come in front of this board. COMMISSIONER FRY: But in this case this home has taken advantage of the swales on either side of the culverts to collect water on their property? MR. FRENCH: Right. So it appears that there is a -- there's a pipe here -- I don't know if that's showing up -- a pipe here, and the pipe end here, and that pipes looks that it would run all the way across. So this would not only move water, but it's going to allow water to sit in there as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Continue, Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. An update, again, furthering the goals of the redevelopment plan is to allowing parking lots abutting Bayshore Drive to have perimeter walls that function as pedestrian seating or public art walls. Again, just to recap. We've been through several rounds of public review here. This Planning Commission meeting leads us into two more hearings which would be the Board of County Commissioners assumed to be in January and February. And with that, we can take on any other questions that you have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. The issue that Commissioner Shea raised, and I think others of us expressed some concern about, one way that we could move this along to the BCC is to call the issue out for -- and ask staff to be sure that when it's presented to the BCC, that they are able to demonstrate existing safety protection mechanisms. It may already be there, and we can pick up the phone, and if people were still at work, we'd find out. But to have that at the ready so that the BCC knows that we called it out for their consideration. And does anybody object to that being part of our -- when we get to the time? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it does say on the county website that on culverts, their ends may be protected with grates to keep debris out -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: May. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- by a headwall or concrete apron to protect them from being crushed. But it's necessary to keep thatch debris from building up at the ends. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Well, I think, you know, one of our responsibilities to our public in Collier County is to flag potential safety issues like this with respect to small animals and small children and there -- we may have seized upon a serious issue that hasn't already been dealt with, although I doubt it. I think it's going to be relatively easy for staff to pull together the information that is needed to show that safety is of foremost concern and that animals and the little children will be protected. I'm just wanting, when it does come to the BCC, that they be informed that the Planning Commission asked staff to make that presentation. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MS. DeJOHN: I was ready to hear public input or any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay, fine. Thanks. No one is signaling yet. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 11 of 17 I've got several comments and questions, mostly just to make a public record of things that have been considered, just like Commissioner Shea did on safety. Does anyone want to speak before? Go ahead, Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Laura, one clarification. It had to do with marinas, boat display. And I saw some -- maybe we could go back to that slide. I'm sorry to make you go back. MS. DeJOHN: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just want to be clear on what is allowed. You're talking about 35 percent. I think it was the next slide talks about maximum linear frontage of property; 35 percent can have boats be visible but not forward of the building. So just in laymen's terms, what can you do or what can you not do on a marina site displaying boats? MS. DeJOHN: Well -- and I'm going to go back because it applies today. Here's what the code says today. So little letter i, boat display activities shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the property's linear frontage, and in little letter ii, all boat sale areas shall not be closer to the frontage line than the primary building they serve. So you see an image here. The frontage -- and this is an old -- I mean, this would apply to new -- new developments. So an older property where you drive by and the frontage, in this example, is entirely -- the only view is of boats. The goal of the code, as it exists today and going forward to any new type of facility, would limit how much -- so 35 percent of that frontage there would be boats, and a building would be more prominent on the site so that, again, for -- if you want to take a stroll along Bayshore, you'd be interacting with storefronts or building fronts rather than just large displays of boats. COMMISSIONER FRY: So this would not -- the photograph does not meet the code? MS. DeJOHN: Right. That's just a condition today, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I have a few. Let me just run through, and if somebody wants to cap on or if I get to an area that you recall a question that you have, feel free to jump in. My first has to do with zoned height versus actual height. And I've had this conversation multiple times with staff including last Tuesday, and I understand that actual height is a concept that the county employs with respect to PUDs, and it hasn't found its way into the statutory or ordinance language outside of the context of PUDs. But I would say this, I would submit to you this: That as a member of the public, as a potential neighbor of these areas, actual height is far more important to me than zoned height, because zoned height does not take account of things like cupolas and steeples and air conditioning equipment and, you know, various other things that can go on rooftops that get added to the zoned height, and all of a sudden you've got the potential for canyonization. So I just -- I raise that as an issue and would like to hear, Ms. DeJohn, what you might have to say about, instead of all these references to zoned height alone, also calling for limitations on actual height. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. I understand the reason you raise that point. That would be a wholesale change throughout this whole Bayshore code that was not contemplated before and, you know, the code does define the maximum exceptions allowable above, you know, the allowed height. Isn't that a 10-foot exception that's allowed? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It would vary for the type of appurtenance on top of the roof. So it could be greater than 10 feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A steeple would certainly be greater; 30, 40 feet. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 12 of 17 MS. DeJOHN: Right, right, right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, I don't know if other members of the Planning Commission are equally concerned about this. Again, going back to what we talked about at One Naples and what I've seen many times in the City of Naples having to do with opportunities that developers take to exceed expectations, public expectations, because zoned height and actual height are different -- different concepts altogether. And in the context of PUDs in Collier County, we always call for a statement of actual height, which I think is a very good thing. And I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't want that same concept throughout our ordinances along with zoned height. So I'm asking my colleagues if I'm the only one up here who's concerned about it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'd like to hear a better explanation, because I'm like you. I, immediately, when they say zoned height, say what's the actual height. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. Others? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But this is a CRA, so they do have a board, an advisory board, so they're going through all this. So there must be a reason. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I doubt that the -- presumably, the advisory board has seen this language and, for whatever reason, did not seize upon this same question that I'm raising, or they were satisfied with zoned height, but they may not think about these issues as often as we do. And, you know, my interest in it has been piqued by a lot of the deals that have come through the Planning Commission. And just as a, you know, member of the public or a neighbor, I know that zoned height is of relatively little interest to the average person who walks down the street, particularly in relation to actual height. What you see is actual height. MS. DeJOHN: I think that discussion becomes very pertinent when it is a PUD and there is a known outcome and there is a known site and an arrangement of the site and a placement of the buildings and the types of buildings that are being proposed, and then a cap, which was -- used to be called the tippy, tippy top, and how tall that would be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. DeJOHN: Here in a, you know, diverse and spread-out area that we're talking about, it's -- to me it's a slippery slope to start guessing what should be the right steeple height if a church were to locate here and try to plug in that number today. I think the variability of a redevelopment area is different than the strictness of going through the PUD process and declaring exactly what's being built and how high and what the adjacencies are and all that information. We just don't have that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think -- that's a -- that is a good point to have been made, the difference between a PUD and a redevelopment area, but for my part, I'm not -- I'm not 100 percent satisfied that this is exactly the way we should deal with it. I would still like to see actual height put in. But I think part of what you were saying is it's come this far, let's get the thing over the goal line, because if we put in actual height, we'd have to have steeple height and this height and air conditioner height and all that, and it would slow things down. So I, for one, am not going to push it, but I did want to at least make that comment just as a member of the public. To me, actual height's what's important. And if things turn out the way we hope they do in this redevelopment area and it gets to be more dense, more intense, you're going to have more people, I think, wondering why the only limitation on height is zoned height. And that's maybe not a completely accurate statement because there are other things. But why we aren't as meticulous with our height limitations in redevelopment areas as we are in PUDs. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, if you were going to offer a clarification, I think I'm thinking that zoned height really is the mass of the structure, and then the actual height is that 5.A.d Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 13 of 17 structure plus any appurtenances, as Ray referred to them, that go on top of that, and there are different allowances for different types of appurtenances. MR. BOSI: Correct. But -- correct, Commissioner. And I also wanted to provide that none of our commercial zoning districts or our residential zoning districts or any of our districts within our LDC have actual height. It's all zoned height. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's all in PUDs. MR. BOSI: It's only PUDs that we use actual height. Now, the bigger question, I think what the Planning Commission wants to engage upon, is should we incorporate actual height all throughout our PUD or all throughout our LDC, not trying to segment out Bayshore, but the entire LDC. That's a much bigger project. I'm not telling you it doesn't have merit, but that's a much bigger discussion than specifically trying to single out Bayshore to say, Bayshore, you incorporate actual and then we'll try to backfill everything else in the LDC. I think the better way is let's, at some point in time, talk about heights -- actual heights, how could we incorporate it into our LDC, and what type of strategy can we have to comprehensively address that issue. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to ask you, I know you're heavily involved in the City of Naples, and those heights are often an issue there. Is it because the appurtenances -- purtenances or appurtenances? -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Appurtenances. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- appurtenances are higher than they're supposed to be, or is it because the heights are constantly being approved at a higher level as exceptions rather than what the base zoning is? Because those are two different things. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The question you have asked is so complicated and would be so time-consuming for me to answer because of provisions in the Naples City charter with respect to height that I -- the thing that I take away -- I just want to say one more thing and then get Commissioner Vernon in -- that the way Mr. Bosi answered it is exactly how I saw it. I'm not wanting to limit this to Bayshore. I think this ought to be across the board and, because that would be a very large job, I'm not going to fall on my sword over it tonight, but I did want to be heard raising a point just on behalf of the average Joe landowner walking down the street and being concerned about canyonization creeping up because zoned height is not the actual height, and it's not the height that would necessarily appear to a bystander, someone walking on the street. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Is this -- Mike, is this within our purview, something we could take a look at in terms of -- not specific to Bayshore, but literally take a look at across the board? MR. BOSI: Oh, yes. It's one of the development standards that's common to every zoning district. The use of zoned height and the merits of incorporating actual height to each one of those zoning districts could be -- you know, it's certainly one of the purviews that's underneath the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I, you know, I said, I think maybe during the election process, that, you know, we seem to be coming together as a group, and I really like the idea of serving on a board where we're proactive and we're not just reactive. So if there's really a -- I'd say it probably takes the staff a while to put something together, but maybe sometime next year, when we have a really light meeting, to spend an hour on this and see if we want to take a look at it so that -- you're correct, you know, a lot of the first questions, well, what's the real height, whether it's the public or back here. So I think it's a good 5.A.d Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 14 of 17 idea for us to be proactive and look at that, but I think -- I do think it's maybe something we do in 2022. COMMISSIONER SHEA: January 6th is wide open. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, if that's enough time for staff, I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff is so short right now that we've got to be very gingerly in our asking things of staff. But I think this is -- I think we're absolutely on the right track. And I agree with you, Commissioner, that being reactive is really not enough and that we can add value as a Planning Commission by stepping forward and taking initiative on ideas like this, and this idea would be a very broad and sweeping idea. And I would suggest, then, that we ask staff to come back at some appropriate time when you're not as shorthanded and we can perhaps have a workshop and talk about this, at least get the ball rolling on the whole subject of actual height throughout the county and not just in PUDs. MR. BOSI: And we'll work on that. We'll work on something to identify all of the zoning districts, what's the zoned height, and then what are the exceptions to all of those and what you could -- you know, so you could have an evaluation as to see, is it really a problem. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. Thank you very much. Good. Let me see what else I have. Not too much. Oh, yeah. On Page 24, or Packet Page 27, there is a note and it's Note 6, and it refers to Table 7, and the note says, development in the mini-triangle area of the GTO MXD subdistrict shall have a maximum setback of 20 feet. I thought we were more concerned about minimum setbacks, are we not? MR. BOSI: What I would say is what they are trying to accomplish within specifically the Gateway Triangle Overlay is creating that pedestrian feel of bringing buildings much closer to the right-of-way and not have parking and various other things that tend to have the openings of space and are less inviting from a pedestrian corridor. It would be why I would think that that would be imposed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BOSI: But, yes, you are correct, normally it is minimal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, all right. Planning Commission have any issues with that? It's something -- once again, I hate to keep bringing up the City of Naples, but that's where my experience is. And on Fifth Avenue, the whole idea of -- go ahead, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: I was just going to say, well, I think you're going to see a little bit of a different approach that's going to come to your City of Naples in the design district and DPZ and that charrette and what they're trying to bring with form-based code isn't bringing buildings away from the right-of-way. It's bringing buildings closer to them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's certainly -- that's created some opposition, though, among people who, for instance, like to walk down Fifth Avenue South, and there's no significant sidewalks there, and people are actually having dining on the sidewalks, but I digress. Okay. That answers the question. Let me see if I can move quickly through these. I don't have too many more, I don't think. Oh, I know. And we talked about this on Tuesday. And I'm -- this takes me to Page 40, which is -- of the free-standing material, it's Packet Page 43, and it's Subsection F of something. But in any event, it's called massing and scale. And I offered suggested rewording of that, and at the time staff didn't seem to have a problem with what I was suggesting. I don't know if you've had time to think about it. Let me -- let me state what I was offering and see what the Planning Commission thinks. Right now it says massing and scale: Houses shall relate in mass and scale to the 5.A.d Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 15 of 17 surrounding neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera, and I have problems with the concept of things relating to, because everything relates to everything else in some way or another. And I think what we're really trying to get at has to do with similarity and compatibility. And so what I was proposing to rewrite and would offer this to the Planning Commission with comment from staff is that it would say, "Housing shall, in mass and scale, be similar to and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood," et cetera. Staff, do you want to say anything before I ask the Planning Commission what they think about that? MR. BOSI: Staff has no objection from a code perspective of that type of clarification. I would also defer to the Bayshore in terms of whether they feel that that may upset what's being proposed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isn't it the case that what we're driving at here is compatibility, when we say "relate to massing and scale"? I mean, these are -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- words that you usually think of in terms of compatibility. MS. DeJOHN: Yes, that's agreed. And just to further your point, the end of the sentence there is descriptive in saying, by adhering to the following standards, colon. So the opening of the sentence leads to adherence to the standards below. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Again, to me it would be in terms of compatibility. But these are all -- I mean, these are very good points that you're adding. But I just -- I have a problem with the "relate to" because I don't think it takes us anywhere logically. Other Planning Commissioners want to be heard on this subject? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody disagree? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. May we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I only ask that -- I mean, what Laura's saying is that after the colon they define the specifics of how they relate; is that not enough? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not for me. I just -- I want it to be clear because compatibility's an issue that we deal about every single time we meet. And I think it's what underlies these concerns, and I think it would strengthen it if we added that language along with the specific points that have been put in there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Could you repeat the language that you proposed? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure, yeah. The new language would read, "Massing and scale: Houses shall, in mass and scale, be similar to and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood," et cetera. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I guess my only comment is I'd be deferential to what they're actually looking for. I mean, she's conveying that thought. I mean, is that something that helps you guys, or you don't really like that idea? MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. Deborah made a good point right now that the -- like, this is a redevelopment area. So sometimes there's older, outdated, nonfunctional buildings with new buildings going in, and so I would recommend we do not reference "similar to." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. How about if I delete that conjunctive part of the sentence so that it's just compatible, because that's -- MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's okay, then? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are other sections of the text, for example, on Page 45, numerical Page 45 where you're talking about apartments that has similar language. So you are 5.A.d Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 Page 16 of 17 changing some standards, and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I only found it in one other place, and I was going to mention that. The same language would be replicated. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Are you going to change the one on Page 45, the existing text? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to change -- it's on my Page 48. Yeah -- that's 45, yeah, yeah. We're talking about the same thing. That's the only place I found it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I saw it in there as well. I did not see it in other sections. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So my suggestion is is that -- and that's Sub D on Page 45 or Packet Page 48 that I would ask that we rewrite the same way and without using the reference to "similarity," just "compatibility." Any objections? MS. DeJOHN: I'm just going to mention, the occurrence might -- because this is a broken-up document to illustrate where the changes are occurring, just if we find that occurrence in one word, little subsection -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MS. DeJOHN: -- we'll make the change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thanks. And that is all I have. And no one is signaling right now. May I infer from that that there are no questions or comments or points of discussion remaining for staff? Does staff have any further before we -- MR. BOSI: Nothing further from staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I don't know, are there any members of the public even here at this point? I think not. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I do not have any registered speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Youngblood. So with that, we'll close the public comment portion of this. MR. BOSI: I think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Eric Johnson, did you want to say something? MR. BOSI: -- Eric Johnson wants to give staff's position. MR. JOHNSON: Great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I remember and recall what was said with respect to pulling together the information to show -- or demonstrate that animals and small children, safety, when we make our presentation to the BCC; that we recognize the BZO and GTZO; and then the third thing is the -- all instances where it says "relate," that should be changed to "compatible with," more or less. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If the context is the same. MR. JOHNSON: If the context is the same. Okay. Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And with respect to the safety and the culverts and the small children and animals, I think what we're wanting to do is simply call that out for the Board of County Commissioners to be satisfied that staff has made the demonstration of what probably are already there, but just so somebody reads it into the record, that the -- that whatever -- whatever part of the government oversees this, I can't recall now, but they have sufficient safety points in place so that we needn't worry about children and small animals being stuck in these things, to their satisfaction not ours, and that way we can pass it on. Okay. Anything else to be said? We've closed the public comment portion of the hearing. And we can have a discussion, or we can entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve with all the changes you just stated. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) November 18, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is staff comfortable that you've got them all? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the proposed changes in the LDC and we pass it on with our recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners, again, subject to those conditions and changes that we mentioned. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. DeJohn and staff, CRA, everyone, for all your work; Ms. Forester, as well, of course. And I don't believe we have any old business; we've completed that. I don't believe we have any new business, do we? Ms. DeJohn, are you -- nothing. Okay. All right. Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's no public comment because there's no public, so we're at a point now where, without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ________________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 17 of 17 ******** 5.A.d Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 11-18-21CCPCLDC_formatted 5PM (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 1 of 78 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 2, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Joe Schmitt (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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 2 of 78 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Good morning and Happy Holidays, and welcome to the December 2, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. I ask that everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I ask the secretary to please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of four. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And, for the record, by way of one-way communications and also announcements at our previous public meeting, we are aware of the absences, and all three absences are excused. Let's see. Addenda to the agenda. First, by our action at our prior meeting, I think it was one of our meetings in September, we approved the request of ACUNE to make its presentation as our very first agenda item at today's meeting. So in keeping with our prior action and without objection, we'll move that item up from old business, where it was incorrectly slotted. Mr. Bellows, are there any other addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: We have no other changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Planning Commission absences, our next meeting is on December 16, 2021. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So those of us who are here, a bare quorum of four, looks like we hope we'll have a quorum. Approval of the minutes. We have no minutes before us today for action. And before I call on Mr. Bellows for the BCC report, it is my distinct pleasure and honor to recognize my dear friend, my former colleague, a person whom I admire greatly, Mr. Stan Chrzanowski, former member of the Planning Commission. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Stand up for one second, Stan, so people can get a look at you. He's the best. He's absolutely the best. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we're so glad to have him. And, Stan, as had been his previous custom, brought along some Dunkin' Donuts and some coffee, and we are eternally grateful for that. Welcome. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 3 of 78 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's the only way I could stay awake. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, Stan. Welcome to you. So glad you're here, sir. BCC report and recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not meet since our last Planning Commission meeting, so we don't have a recap today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. And so at this time the Chair recognizes Drs. Hushon and Savarese for their ACUNE presentation. Our goal is to attempt to keep this to under an hour but, naturally, if questions result, then we're not going to penalize the presenters for the questions and for the time it may take them to answer. Dr. Savarese. DR. SAVARESE: Good morning. Thanks for having us here today. I'm joined with Judy Hushon, who's at the other microphone, and with -- also joined by Sally Woliver, who is in the seats. And let me get the presentation started. All right. Just to kick this off, I just wanted to let you know that FGCU and our water school, we've teamed up with the League of Women Voters, the Collier County chapter, to help get this package of tools into the hands of the right people so that they're used effectively. So what we're going to be presenting to you today is really the results of some phenomenal science that has occurred over the last four years and that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Professor, with apologies. I don't mean to be interrupting you so quickly. But would you mind stating your full name and your status at Florida Gulf Coast University. DR. SAVARESE: Sure. I'm sorry. I always forget to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. DR. SAVARESE: Anyway, I'm Mike Savarese. I'm a professor of geology at Florida Gulf Coast University and a member of our newly formed water school, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. DR. SAVARESE: You're welcome. Anyway, so what we're going to show you today is the product of some scientific work that's been done with scientists from a variety of organizations, including the University of Florida, the U.S. Geological Survey, the South Florida Water Management District, and a number of others. And we as liaisons, if you will, our role is to bring these tools forward to inform people, to train them on their use, and hopefully facilitate their use throughout the county to help prepare as we move forward as sea level rise occurs and as storms become worse. The tools are collectively known as ACUNE. ACUNE is an acronym that stands for Adaptation of Coastal, Urban, and Natural Ecosystems, and it's really a package of vulnerability analysis tools. What is a vulnerability analysis tool? Well, ACUNE, the first one that you can see highlighted in green, anyway, is how the county is vulnerable to sea level rise and to storms as storms become more intense and perhaps more frequent as we move into the future. So it's a package of computer models that provides visualizations of what the landscape will look like as we move forward into the future. In addition, there's a second package of tools. By the way, both of these efforts are being funded through federal dollars through NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The second collection of tools isn't quite ready yet and will be ready in about a year's time. And it's the same sort of thing. It's another package of vulnerability analysis tools reliant on computer models. But these tools, or the second package of tools, deals with freshwater inundation from precipitation and from flooding. And when ACUNE Plus becomes available, the county will have in its hands a complete package of tools to look at how water in the future is likely to affect the landscape. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 4 of 78 The collaborators, you can see listed up there. The collaborators, these are -- this is the science team that's put the work together: University of Florida; the U.S. Geological Survey; my own university, Florida Gulf Coast University; the South Florida Water Management District; Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve has been involved; and then there's a private engineering firm called Flow-2D that's been involved as well. What's the purpose of the presentation? Well, it's really fourfold. First, we wanted to provide you with an overview of what ACUNE does and its value for analyzing vulnerability as we move into the future. We'd also like to brief the planning council on how the county plans to use ACUNE. So the good news is, one of the pieces of good news is, that county staff is intending to use ACUNE to help with its efforts. The third purpose is to ask the Commission to consider including some language recognizing ACUNE's value within the Growth Management Plan. That may be a tall ask, but we personally think it would be wonderful if there were some genuine commitments to using ACUNE wherever it can be useful. And then the fourth and the last, these tools are helpful in helping the county comply with state law. The Peril of Flood Statute looms over us, and this new statewide flooding resiliency act, Senate Bill 1954, are both edicts from the state that require the county jump through some hoops, and ACUNE can be very helpful in those regards as well. Let me first tell you a little bit about what ACUNE is. It's really a collection of tools. Again, this is a NOAA funded project. It was about a million dollars of investment that came to Collier County. Incidentally, the funding came through the Restore Act, so it's actually BP settlement money through the Deepwater Horizon's disaster that's paying for this and has paid for a lot of similar efforts around the Gulf Coast. Again, it looks at vulnerability, but just by seawater, caused by sea level rise and by storms. The tools inside the package, again, it's a large collection of computer models. The details aren't important. You can see a number of bulleted items underneath the tools. Suffice it to say the tools look at inundation caused by sea level rise, what we commonly refer to as nuisance flooding or sunny day flooding. You've probably heard about that particularly on the East Coast where it's made the news and being dealt with. It also deals with inundation caused by storm surge and inundation caused by waves. And it's important to recognize that as we move forward into the future, as sea level goes up, storm surge and waves, when a storm does impinge upon a region, makes the water ever higher, and as the storms become more intense as the oceans warm, the water gets even higher still. So ACUNE looks at those contingencies as we move forward into the future. It also employs a tool developed by FEMA. It's their economic modeling tool called HAZUS which allows you to look at the economic impact, how property might be damaged looking at an annualized property loss. There's also the ability to use ACUNE for rapid forecasting. ACUNE can be used to look at storms as they're approaching, and so there's an opportunity already being employed by our Collier emergency management department that's actually using the tool to help with its contingency planning as storms make their way to Southwest Florida. And then the last tool is a tool known as XBEACH, and it allows you to look at how the coast, the barrier islands and the beaches, are likely to respond as sea level rise occurs and as storms impact upon the coast. And the last piece of this and probably the one that's involved the community more than any other is the development of what we call asset layers. So what's really important is what's a value on the landscape. What cultural, natural, and urban resources are important to the county. They might be roadways. They may be churches. They may be Native American sites. They may be mangrove forests. We, with the help of people throughout Collier County, have assembled and collated all of those assets, and ACUNE maps those assets on top of the simulation so you can 5.A.e Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 5 of 78 actually see which asset is affected in the future and how seriously. One of the great things about this project and the League -- the League of Women Voters has been a league leader, if I can call the league a league. It's been a big help in just getting the word out and involving the community. This project has involved both the Board of County Commissioners and the three city councils from the very inception of the proposal itself. And through this community outreach effort, we've developed two end-user teams. This is a collection of 70 or so professionals that are tasked with managing our landscape as we move forward into the future. There have been numerous public presentations and workshops. We've also collected about 80 civic leaders, the best and the brightest that Collier County has to offer, to engage them in the process. And, again, all of these groups have been involved in the project since the very inception, both from the development of the proposal through the development of the tools, and now with their application as we're here in the final stages. The models in the toolbox are highly sophisticated. I'm not sure if you're familiar with what a bathtub model is. Typically, or most simply, the way vulnerability to sea level rise is done is by just raising sea level. If sea level goes up a foot, let's make a map of the position of the oceans one foot higher than it is today, just using a topographic map, and anything that was one foot above sea level or lower is now -- at least projected in the future is predicted to be under water. This is not a bathtub model. Landscapes don't behave so simply. The landscape influences just how far and how deep water is likely to incur. The model also combines tides, waves, storm surge, and sea level rise. So it packages it all together. These kinds of vulnerability tools are only as good as the topography. The elevation of the landscape is behind it. And this particular collection of models relies on some very well-conceived digital elevation models. So Collier County has at its disposal probably the best topography it's ever had, and the models are founded on top of that. I'd mentioned that the landscape has a tendency to slow the incoming water down. It attenuates the floods. That's particularly important. And our county, at least large portions of our county, particularly the south and eastern part, have lots of green infrastructure, like mangrove forests and salt marshes, and they do a remarkable job of slowing down the flood, and ACUNE accounts for that. The one thing our package of tools does that others don't is it accounts for climate change's affects on storms as we move forward into the future. So this collection of tools doesn't treat storms as static. It anticipates their change as the planet warms as we move forward into the future. And the last piece of this is that ACUNE is updatable and adaptable. So as we move forward as the science get better -- gets better, as the county's needs and asset concerns change, we're able to update -- update the package to keep it current. One of the important things we needed to do at the very beginning was to agree upon what sea level height was likely to be as we move forward into the future and what were the target dates going to be for future planning. The community as a whole agreed on three target dates. You can see them up there in the table; 2030, 2060, and 2100. And then we collectively decided to use NOAA'S 2017 sea level curves to pick a low, medium, and high sea level rise magnitude for each of those dates. So you can see in this table, sea level could go up as little as .4 feet in 2030 or as high as 8.4 feet in 2100, and ACUNE models all nine of those scenarios. So it gives managers an opportunity to make some subjective decisions about what kind of risk you're willing to take. Are you willing to be ultraconservative and plan against the worst-case scenario, or are you willing to be less conservative and willing to accept a greater risk and choose a lower sea-level-rise scenario? The tools can be used in a variety of ways. You can just use ACUNE for nuisance flooding just caused by sea level rise and tides. I don't know if you've noticed, but our high tides are getting higher, and more areas within Collier County are flooding during spring tides when the 5.A.e Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 6 of 78 moon is full or when the moon is new. You can anticipate how that's going to worsen as we move forward in time. You can also look at how storms are going to affect the county on top of sea level rise. So it anticipates storm surge and waves during different storm scenarios on top of sea level that will be sitting higher than it is today. You can also use the economic impact tool and look at how properties are likely to be damaged. DR. HUSHON: That's limited to certain people can use that. DR. SAVARESE: Yes, Judy, that is true. DR. HUSHON: And you have to be turned on. You have to request it and be turned on by the county, by Amy Patterson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Dr. Hushon, I'm going to ask you the same thing: Please identify yourself, if you don't mind. DR. HUSHON: Dr. Judith Hushon, League of Women Voters. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. DR. HUSHON: Yeah. I just want to say, that tool is not widely available. DR. SAVARESE: Thanks, Judy. And that's probably a good reminder to state something else. There are certain portions of ACUNE, like the economic tool, that is only accessible by certain users. For example, there are asset layers that look at culture resources: Where are Native American sites? And those are protected by state law. So there are certain pieces of ACUNE that are potentially viewable by anyone and then others that are only viewable by a select audience. So, anyway, the fourth bullet up there, the distribution of future mangroves and salt marsh habitat, this sounds kind of esoteric, but it really isn't. One of the interesting things about ACUNE is it will predict where mangroves and salt marshes are going to go in the future, and where they go in the future determines how the landscape responds to flooding in the future. So it accounts for the natural changes in the landscape. It accounts for what happens to the green infrastructure. And then the last part is you can use it to predict erosion hot and cold spots on the outer coast, and, therefore, with your management needs, you can predict where you're likely to have weaknesses on the beaches and on the dune structures. Let me walk you through some still images that show you ACUNE, and then when I've finished with that, Judy's going to take you on a live tour of ACUNE. We have the tool up and running, but let me give you some stills first. So this is what the web viewer looks like. So as you log on, this is what you would see. There's a large variety of help resources available, including a video and a manual, and so there's lots of helpful information to make sure that the people that are using this are using it correctly and not over-interpreting what they're seeing. You can see the landscape. That's just a Google Earth image of Collier County. The mapping is done at high resolution, a 20-by-20 meter. Imagine, you know, 20 yards of a football field. That's the accuracy at which the landscape is mapped, and then you can see in the upper right there's a number of tools that can be opened in the legend. I'll show you an example of that in a moment. For example, if you were to open up Collier County assets, that top menu, you would see a collection of assets displayed here. What we've done is we've turned on the fire stations and the parks, so the location of every park and every fire station is located here. We've zoomed in a little bit on the landscape to focus more in on the heart of Naples. And then you can run a simulation of sea level rise and storminess and determine which of those resources are impacted. This is a simulation done for 2060 for a medium sea level rise magnitude, and this looks at the distribution of water on the landscape if sea level had gone up by that amount in 2060 and had experienced a 1-in-100-year flood. And what you can see here color coded is the depth of watering sitting on the landscape in feet. So those yellows and light oranges are as much as nine to 10 feet of standing water on the surface, the greens are five and six, the blues between one and 5.A.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 7 of 78 three feet. So, again, we've zoomed out quite far, so you can't see the actual impact on specific assets, but you can zoom right in and determine whether or not a fire station is in standing water under those conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry has a question. DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Dr. Savarese, it says "storm flood" at the top, so what exactly are you modeling there? It's more than just sea level rise. It's a storm flood in addition to sea level rise? DR. SAVARESE: That's correct. So let me back up a couple of slides, because I can never remember the numbers. DR. HUSHON: You said 100-foot -- we said a 100-year storm, and, you know, a 100-year rainfall storm on top of a sea level rise, and what -- you had a year of 2030? DR. SAVARESE: It was 2060. DR. HUSHON: Sixty, 2060. Okay, so you're looking at two feet or -- DR. SAVARESE: 1.7. DR. HUSHON: -- 1.77 feet of sea level rise plus the amount from a 100-year storm. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So we'll have under 10 feet of water in the yellow or the green? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, it's scary. No question about it. DR. HUSHON: Yeah. You're looking at Rookery Bay, Ten Thousand Islands down there. DR. SAVARESE: Yeah. A lot of what you see in yellow -- again, Judy makes a good point. A lot of what you see -- the scariest part of the landscape, the yellows and the oranges, are in public natural lands, mangrove forests, that are accustomed to being under water, you know, at least for short periods of time. You know, the inhabited areas, Marco Island, the City of Naples, the eastern part of Collier County that's developed, not so bad. The only heavily -- relatively heavily occupied piece of real estate that's seriously harmed in the yellows and oranges here would be Everglades City and Chokoloskee. Everglades City is just sort of covered by the legend, but you can see Chokoloskee there in the lower right corner. You know, your question is a good one. So one of the nice things about ACUNE and is, as far as I know, unique to this computer modeling package is that it treats future storms in a statistically meaningful way. Let me explain that. Normally when you're running another type of model and you want to predict storm surge on the landscape, you have to tell the model what storm to simulate. So, for example, this could be a map of 2060 with Irma replayed, the track of Irma, Irma's characteristics from 2017 replayed in 2070, 2060, with a 1.7-foot sea level rise. And that just gives you kind of a static glimpse of what the landscape looks like if Irma had replayed itself in 2060 and, of course, you know, storms are squirrely, and they don't -- they're like children, they don't behave, and they go wherever they want to. What this computer modeling package does is it looks at Collier County's storm history as we go back as far as humans have been recording storms and then anticipates climate change and the way storms are likely to alter as we move forward into the future and then creates sort of a generic 1-in-100-year storm, and that's what you're seeing here is this generic representation of what a 1-in-100-year storm would look like given Collier's storm history and the likelihood of how storms are going to change as we move forward into the future. So one of the things that's relatively easy to do as a manager is to look at your vulnerability due to nuisance flooding, because we know very well and very confidently where the flooding is going to occur due to high tides. We know less -- at least less confidently, where the storm surge is going to be. ACUNE gives you a better -- a better ability to anticipate where the storm surge is likely to occur. I hope that made sense. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask a follow-up question on that? DR. SAVARESE: Yes, please. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 8 of 78 COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say a -- right now we have a database that a 100-year storm does a -- produces a certain impact. You're saying that you're actually predicting what a new 100-year storm would look like in the future? DR. SAVARESE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because our database right now is just woefully inadequate. So you're actually predicting -- it's a predicted 100-year storm, not a historical 100-year storm? DR. SAVARESE: It's a predicted 100-year storm based on the history of our 100-year storms. If that -- that doesn't look like that helped at all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It sounded good, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you'll have to come to the microphone if you want to speak. I'd be glad to have you do that. Introduce yourself, please. MS. WOLIVER: I'm Sally Woliver. I'm the other part of this team and our trio, I should say, or do I say menage et trois, to be correct. Good morning. Thank you for inviting us. Mike, I'm wondering, in the interest of time, because we are only supposed to be here till, what, 9:45? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'd like to see if we can't get this wrapped up, yeah, by around 9:45. MS. WOLIVER: Let's jump into the live drive in just a few minutes, because I think that will help you understand what it looks like when you're operating this as well. So maybe just jump ahead. DR. SAVARESE: All right. Maybe what I'll do is show you one example of how ACUNE is currently being used, and then we'll go to the live drive; does that sound okay? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. DR. SAVARESE: All right. Anyway, ACUNE is currently being used in a number of different efforts. Let me show you something the City of Naples is doing. The City of Naples is having trouble with its stormwater management infrastructure. Here you can see is the ACUNE viewer. This is -- I'm trying to see if I can read it. This is 2030 under medium sea level rise. Again, about a .7-foot increase. This is just nuisance flooding, so no storms. And you can see -- we've zoomed into the heart of Naples. You can see there are four or five areas that are outlined in red. Those are assets that the City of Naples has identified. It is their stormwater management basins, and those are basins that they're targeting for engineering improvement and are working on getting a contract together now to do whatever infrastructural improvement is required. Under these conditions in 2030, you can see the blue areas. The dark blue areas represent nuisance flooding of about one to two feet of seawater on the landscape, and you can see a number of those polygons have lots of blue in them, particularly the one furthest to the south and the one just adjacent to the Gordon River bridge. DR. HUSHON: That's down near Naples Dock, the one on the -- to the south. DR. SAVARESE: I guess I have a pointer. DR. HUSHON: And you can see the airport, too, how it's not being inundated, but the land surrounding it is. The runways are okay. DR. SAVARESE: This is a management basin that's affected, and this is a management basin that's being affected intensely. And this kind of information, then, can inform what kinds of engineering strategies are ultimately employed to improve the situation. So I think what I'll do is I'll end it there. There are other examples. The Naples Botanical Garden is using it to look at where they're going to conserve tropical Caribbean endangered plants. The Florida Public Archaeological Network is actually using it to prioritize which of the cultural assets on our landscape require immediate attention. And just to bring this to a close, I just wanted to remind you that Collier will be getting the second package of tools, ACUNE Plus, probably next year. And once this is in play, then Collier had the ability to look at its vulnerability to both freshwater and seawater in a very comprehensive 5.A.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 9 of 78 way. Our next steps: There are training sessions scheduled by the county for the county staff, and those are coming up next week, December 6th and 7th. The League is developing a series of public presentations, one for each of the county's districts, to inform decision makers and the public in those particular districts. And we're hoping that ACUNE is applied when managing growth and redevelopment, and I guess that's where your role could come in. So let me just say thanks. There are -- there's contact information there if you would like to get in touch with us, our email addresses. And I'm going to turn it over to Judy and Sally. DR. HUSHON: Are you going to go over there and drive? MS. WOLIVER: We're going to use Mike to drive, because it's his computer, and I might crash it. DR. HUSHON: Oh, okay. MS. WOLIVER: Just a couple of things. These slides are available to you if you'd like. We can send them to you. It helps you to review it. And where would you like to go this morning? Is there any particular scenario or part of town that you would like to see? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're sitting in a meeting right now. How about here? MS. WOLIVER: Okay. Sounds good. DR. HUSHON: Government center. MS. WOLIVER: Do you want to grab your doughnuts first? DR. HUSHON: Let's go ahead and go to 2030 medium sea level rise. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is this -- DR. SAVARESE: This is the government center here. DR. HUSHON: And the medium -- our person up in the University of Florida, Peter Sheng, has said that the medium may be our new low, so I don't look at anything below medium usually. When I'm doing evaluations, I start with kind of a medium. Look at the medium; look at the high. This is because the Arctic and Antarctic are melting faster, and we're seeing sea level rise occur at greater rates. Now we're getting close to the government center. DR. SAVARESE: This is the government center here. I guess this is the building. Is this the building we are standing in or sitting in? All right. So I'm going to turn on -- what year did you pick, 2060? DR. HUSHON: Well, you can do 2060, or we can do 2030 and then do 2060. DR. SAVARESE: All right. Here's 2030 with a medium sea level rise. DR. HUSHON: Medium. DR. SAVARESE: So you can see the stormwater management areas, the ponds, are affected by nuisance tidal flooding, but the landscape, you know, the infrastructure and the buildings themselves, are pretty secure. I can zoom in a little bit closer. Okay. So, again, this is nuisance flooding without a storm. DR. HUSHON: However, to the south and west, across -- across 41, things get a little wetter, and some of the homes are not doing so well, and some of the streets are not doing so well. DR. SAVARESE: Here's Haldeman Creek. Here's -- what's the name of the food truck park? COMMISSIONER FRY: Celebration. DR. SAVARESE: Celebration Park. Celebration Park is actually dry under this scenario, but you can see this neighborhood in Olde Naples, and this neighborhood here, by the way, which has been experiencing nuisance flooding for years, is seriously impacted. So there's a lot of -- a lot of homes there. DR. HUSHON: But this gives you all -- if you're looking at a piece of land for development, all you have to do is go to where that location is and put in several scenarios, and you will quickly know how resilient that land is to flooding -- 5.A.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 10 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would one of the options then -- DR. HUSHON: -- and to storms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- be if an applicant comes before us with a project, and we would take a look at this software and determine where sea level would be in a certain subsequent year, we could, then, perhaps ask the applicant to build up; is that -- would that be one -- DR. HUSHON: You could ask them to build up. You could tell them that their roads need to be much higher than you might have thought, that the general landscape needs to be higher, or where to locate buildings on the land, because the land is often high and low. When you look at the LiDAR of the land, you know that there's a high part and a low part. And this really underlines the fact that you need to keep the development in the high part, and you may need -- the high part may be smaller than they thought it was. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So there are some things that we could do in the future to mitigate what would otherwise be very unfavorable consequences? DR. HUSHON: Yes. And what's happening, too, are that some of the feeder roads for some of the developments you're going to be looking at are going to be under. For example, along Haldeman Creek there, some of the roads down in that area go under well. Gordon Drive goes under. Gulf Shore Drive goes under. Some of the streets in the City of Naples go under. Now, that's not your concern right now, but they do; they go under. Down in the area of the city dock, all those streets look like they're under water completely. Some of the houses are up and dry, but these -- DR. SAVARESE: You know, this -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Commissioner Fry to ask a question, if you don't mind, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just in interpreting the map, I see the areas of blue, dark blue and light blue. Now, they don't really show buildings underneath, but I'm assuming some of those areas there actually are buildings there. So is there an easy way to, like, shift this on and off so you can see where the buildings were and what was covered by water? MS. WOLIVER: Yes. You just turn it on and off, and you can pick what level you want. We wanted you to understand nuisance flooding, too. It's a great description, right. Well, nuisance flooding is high tides and low tides. It's the perigee and moon, when the moon is closest, added to sea level rise. So that's your definition for nuisance flooding when you see this, because it helps to understand conceptually. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you take this back to 2021 so we can see what's not covered in blue? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, I'm going to do that right now. So I'm going to just turn off the modeling or turn off the nuisance flooding so -- but maybe concentrate your focus on this blue area here. And as I turn it off -- if I can find it, here it is. If I turn this off, you can see -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, my goodness. DR. SAVARESE: There are a lot of houses. This is actually a mobile home park. Commonly, you know, what you see, unfortunately, is that the lower -- the lower valued property that allow for this kind of development, or has in the past, turns out to be the most vulnerable to sea level effects. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. DR. SAVARESE: If you don't mind, the Chairman asked a question how to use this. This is -- this is really all about building resilience. In other words, how do you adapt to these kinds of problems? And there are practices in place, and the county is charged and staffed to do this, to take this information and develop adaptation plans that can then minimize the risk, say, of this neighborhood going under water in 2030 due to nuisance flooding. And so that's part of the normal practice in growth management and development. The trick is finding ways to pay for it, of course. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you show us 2060 now? 5.A.e Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 11 of 78 DR. SAVARESE: Sure. The same neighborhood? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. DR. SAVARESE: All right. So I'm going to go with 2060, and I'm going to go with -- DR. HUSHON: Medium. DR. SAVARESE: Medium. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, my God. DR. HUSHON: What park? MS. WOLIVER: Yeah. Now, remember, you're probably looking at this and saying, oh, I'm buying a boat. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you need to be on mic. MS. WOLIVER: Sorry. What you want to remember when you're looking at this is the reason we picked the time frame starting in 2030 was that there would be time for Collier County, City of Naples, Marco Island, et cetera, to look at their budget and say, what do we need to be doing? Where do we want to be relocating? Where do roads need to be made higher? So what you're looking at is as this model is being completed, there's the time now to begin to react and to make decisions. That's why next week Judy and I will be working closely with Amy Patterson and her staff to help with staff training. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry and then Eastman. COMMISSIONER FRY: It seems like one of the logical applications of this would by FEMA, you know, and for our codes in terms of floodplains, you know, flood elevations, all those types of things. We experienced a lot of this in our One Naples application. DR. HUSHON: The manager for that is actually coming to the training next week. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So would FEMA use this tool? I mean, we have a lot of controversy about flood insurance and floodplains and all those kinds of things. DR. SAVARESE: Right. You know, I guess I'm just a geeky scientist and don't necessarily understand how the insurance world works. I don't know that anybody understands how the insurance world works. But suffice it to say, you know, this is going to provide more comprehensive and, I would argue, more realistic scenarios for flooding in the future. Under obligations of law, I do believe the county has to follow FEMA's flood maps and the way they're flooding things. So -- and I would venture to say that our scenarios are probably, overall, more worrisome than what FEMA's flood maps are generating. There's a new generation of FEMA flood maps that are being produced. So it gives the county an opportunity to be a little more conservative, I would argue, in terms of a way they decide to manage. How that affects insurance rates is another matter. Insurance rates are not going to be calculated based on these simulations; they're going to be based on FEMA's flood maps. DR. HUSHON: This is much more useful in the western and southern parts of the county right now. When the new ACUNE Plus comes out, it will also have inundation. And what also happens, of course, is that inundation comes down through our canal systems and meets storm surge coming up from the coast. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Mike, is there time to do an example that's along the coast, like the Vanderbilt Beach area or something, or Pelican Bay, something that's right along the gulf? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, that's fine. As long as you have time, we can be -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: How about your residence, Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Much further inland. DR. SAVARESE: You want -- DR. HUSHON: That's Pelican Bay right there, you're on. DR. SAVARESE: Did you want to see Pelican Bay and north? MR. EASTMAN: Sure. Yeah, sure. DR. HUSHON: And leave "and north" on, because -- 5.A.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 12 of 78 MR. EASTMAN: And north. DR. HUSHON: Because North Naples has some issues when you -- I was going to say, leave the north on, because north -- well, you can always zoom up there and go up there. But it has more of a problem. Remember, Pelican Bay has mangroves in front of their beaches, so it, in terms of storm surge, a good buffer. It's one of our few neighborhoods with a buffer. DR. SAVARESE: So this is the coastal edge, again, Pelican Bay, all the way north up to Wiggins Pass, and this is nuisance flooding only, 2030, with a medium sea level rise magnitude. And a lot of what you're seeing flooded down here, anyway, is Clam Bay, Clam Bays themselves. But these neighborhoods are obviously affected. Let me zoom in here to the Vanderbilt Beach area. And let me -- let me turn off the simulation so you can see what's underneath it. I suspect mostly what you're seeing here is natural areas along the Cocohatchee River. So these are areas that are not developed. So if I turn this off, you can see it's mangrove forest primarily. DR. HUSHON: But down -- if you go down to the area just south -- the bottom center of the screen, you'll see this is North Naples, and there are a lot of blue areas down in there, and these are houses that have just flooded out. DR. SAVARESE: Now we've just looked at -- MR. EASTMAN: Can you show us 2060? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, sure. Let me turn this off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that Naples Park? DR. SAVARESE: This is Naples Park. DR. HUSHON: Yes. DR. SAVARESE: So here's 2060 medium, okay. And things get a little more serious. So these neighborhoods are affected here in Naples Park. If I scroll back up to Vanderbilt Beach and the Cocohatchee, some of these neighborhoods are affected. This neighborhood is affected. DR. HUSHON: The one just to the north of that. DR. SAVARESE: Let me turn it on and off real quick just to see what's underneath. I don't know what neighborhood this is, but this neighborhood looks like it's impacted under this scenario. DR. HUSHON: Totally. Like, totally. But this is why, in planning -- anything that you plan and allow development on in the future should be able to have at least 40-year or 50-year life, at least that's -- I think, I mean, if you're going to build something, it has to have a certain life period, and that's why it's important to know, the land looks fine today, but it may not be 20 years from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like the FEMA rules may be more relaxed than the rules that we might want to put in. DR. HUSHON: They are. I would agree with you. DR. SAVARESE: They are, but they're likely to change and will get more stringent. DR. HUSHON: And the insurance companies are picking this up. That's the other thing to remember. Insurance along the coast is becoming much more -- already becoming much more expensive due to storm surge. MS. WOLIVER: Actually, to address the commissioner's question a little more fully, FEMA and NOAA are cooperating. NOAA's now being used to inform FEMA with their maps, so you're going to see changes. It will be trickle effect, too, to the Army Corps of Engineers who's been relying on FEMA, but there is a difference. Peter Sheng, Dr. Peter Sheng who wrote this model, is Mike's co-collaborator on the grant, has said, look for changes, because they're recognizing that FEMA is no longer adequate for the dynamics of sea level rise and climate change. So you will be seeing changes in the very, very near future. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are insurance companies able to look at this model, which you've said is more severe, more worrisome, and are they able to base their rates on this, which would result in huge increases for people that are in potentially impacted areas? 5.A.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 13 of 78 MS. WOLIVER: Well, first, one step at a time. This is a tool that was created for the governments here in Collier County: Marco Island, City of Naples, Collier County. How private businesses will have access to this will really be something that needs to be discussed. I mean, it can be made available, but the other thing is you cannot have too many users on this at the same time because it's a very, very sophisticated tool. Go ahead. DR. SAVARESE: FEMA only has control over the National Flood Insurance Program. So if your property's covered by the National Flood Insurance Program, then you have to conform to their rules. So this alliance between NOAA and FEMA and the reconfiguration of FEMA's flood maps will bring in better science. Not ACUNE-level science, but better science, nonetheless, and will affect that National Flood Insurance Program. I don't know how many people in our county rely on that program and how many have independent insurance. And I guess it's conceivable that, you know, this tool could be used to determine insurance rates through private -- through other companies. COMMISSIONER FRY: But just as they have their own actuaries -- DR. HUSHON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- they would use whatever tools they deem accurate to set the rates, I would assume, the private insurance companies. DR. SAVARESE: I believe that's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: They're not restricted to using FEMA? DR. HUSHON: No, they are not restricted, and -- but they will -- they have started using some, and the rates are going up. I mean, if you were to ask questions, the rates along the coast, among people who are having to purchase insurance, homeowners' insurance, have gone up. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MS. WOLIVER: Just to add to that, one of the things that Judy and I are doing through the League of Women Voters is we are inviting community leaders. We're inviting businesses and giving small-group sessions over Zoom so that they can see, and it's part of why we want to do, working with Collier County, the meetings in each district. Those will both be live and available over Zoom. And next week we'll be talking with Amy, Amy Patterson, our Deputy County Manager, about scheduling those and how to work collaboratively with each BCC commissioner who, by the way, they've all seen this, too. DR. HUSHON: We're also working with some of our business -- not our businesses. But, like, the Botanical Garden, they were just about to embark on strategic planning. This was perfect timing for them. Their whole staff and their board have seen it. So they can plan. The zoo has to do planning, the Naples Zoo. Conservancy. Other groups where -- which are -- other outside groups that have to do planning, they are going to be impacted, just as neighborhoods have to plan, businesses have to plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your presentation is very intriguing and persuasive. I'm going to interrupt you for just a second and ask Mr. Youngblood for the purposes of our forward planning for our morning, do we have registered speakers after this, sir? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have one registered speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So maybe take another five or 10 minutes if you need it, or if not we can -- MS. WOLIVER: I think, if you're -- DR. HUSHON: Sally, you're not on -- MS. WOLIVER: If you're fine, we're fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think we took liberties of interrupting and got our questions answered. And, again, your presentation was very informative. MS. WOLIVER: Thank you. We're happy to come back. DR. HUSHON: And I guess the other thing is, any of you who would like to try driving 5.A.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 14 of 78 it, you have our emails. We can make that available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, did you want to be heard, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: It just seems like an unbelievable tool but, like anything else, it has a good and a bad side of it, and how quickly we can get to the resiliency part of it is going to have a big impact because to me, if I own a house right there in the middle of that blue area, I'd be looking to sell it if I saw this chart, and that's also the other side of the coin is maybe a little bit of unnecessary impact on the sales, real estate sales and the ownership of the properties in these areas. So as fast as we can move to what the plan is to mitigate as much of this as possible is really important. DR. HUSHON: You can put pressure a little bit to the county. They are talking about hiring a chief resiliency officer. You-all can be a little bit of pressure on how fast that hire occurs. MS. WOLIVER: And please remember, we're looking out in time. This is based on what we know the best science available for 2030. That's to give us an opportunity as a community to respond intelligently. You know, it doesn't mean go out and sell your property. It means plan ahead. This is why we're using this, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, did you have more? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actually, I have a question for Mike. I mean, we've talked about the county. What is the county going to do with this? How do you anticipate implementing the use of this? It probably needs some kind of regulatory support, I would guess. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is going to play very neatly into our next agenda item. This is a statement of the problem. Then we're going to talk about solutions. I'm sorry, Dr. Savarese, go ahead. DR. SAVARESE: It's the other Mike. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The other Mike. Mike Bosi. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. DR. SAVARESE: Good name, by the way. MR. BOSI: I would correlate it to how the county utilizes the Collier Interactive Growth Model, CIGM. It's a supplemental planning tool that we utilize that models land-use activity and infrastructure needs and service needs associated with those land-use activities and provides a complement towards how we do our long-range planning and some of our capital planning. I believe this is a tool that the Board has recognized that's valuable within specifically the next item that's up is the amendment to the CCME that's telling us within two years we have to develop a resiliency plan for low-lying flooding areas. Obviously, this is a tool that could be -- could be utilized to help us inform us of where those activities are, where those vulnerabilities are, and how to best address those and target the areas of greatest need and provide for a broader understanding of where the issues are today but, more importantly, where the issues can be 20, 30, and 40 years out into the future. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How do you see it impacting what we do on a biweekly basis? We review -- we review a proposed development, will there be a -- maybe another review group that would tell us how it might be impacted in the future with maybe some recommendations or -- MR. BOSI: That could be one of the outcomes of, you know, as staff is trained upon the model as we start looking at it, as we have applications that are in the Coastal High Hazard Area, as we have applications that are within the more -- those spots closer to the coast, we could -- I could see how this could inform us to be able to provide you more information as to some of the impacts and some of the needed improvements or needed conditions that may be required, you know, if there was going to be a contemplation of a petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And also we sit as the EAC, and that role may become even more significant in the future as a result of problems like this. I think the presenters have done an admirable job in keeping within the requested time, and we thank you very much for that. Any final remarks? DR. SAVARESE: No. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 15 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. DR. SAVARESE: Thanks. DR. HUSHON: We're here if you need us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. DR. SAVARESE: Can I shut this down? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to have a couple of registered speakers. You might want to leave it up. DR. SAVARESE: I'll just get it out of the way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fine. Mr. Youngblood, who do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I actually have two registered speakers on this item. Our first one is going to be Dennis Vasey, followed by Stan Chrzanowski. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Morning, Colonel. MR. VASEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dennis P. Vasey, a full-time resident of Collier County. Development of a National Ocean Atmospheric Administration web-based interactive decision-support tool for Adaptation of Coastal, Urban, and Natural Ecosystems, ACUNE, began in 2017, and it's progressing. ACUNE is a geo tool. It uses the best available climate, coastal, ecological, and economic sciences to model probabilistic coastal flood maps and asset maps. ACUNE data visualizations can inform and impact decision-making and resolve misunderstandings about how we might be affected by climate change and biodiversity loss. Climate change and biodiversity loss are linked and present socioeconomic and environmental challenges of various spatial scales that require strong adaptation and mitigation strategies. ACUNE represents the best local climate change and biodiversity loss information available. I respectfully request that you recommend ACUNE use be mandated for all future development and restoration projects delivered to your commission for consideration. And as an aside, I recommend that you include all of the other tools currently being used in our future planning assessments to build resiliency in your recommendation. Thank you, and Seasons Greetings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Colonel Vasey. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next and final speaker is going to be Stan Chrzanowski. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome, Honorable Mr. Chrzanowski. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you for your kind words, Ed. And for you Terri, "Wesolych Swiat Bozego Narodzenia i szczesliwego Nowego Roku." That's Polish for Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Probably a few other things, too, which should go unsaid. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I know you all know about tides. You get two high tides and two low tides a day, and both the high tides are a different elevation. And the higher of the two high tides, you take the average of the higher of the two high tides, and you get mean, average, high high tide. But tide does rise higher than that. I assume they're going with the highest tide or maybe the mean average. That will all be worked out. This county has a very good drainage system, but drainage systems work both ways. Culverts flow both ways. If you're trying to drain a road to an area where the water is higher than the road, the water's going to drain back to the road. I assume the model takes that into account. Back in -- well, I retired in 2010, and you never could have convinced me in 2010 that humans could change the world's climate. It just wasn't going to happen. In 2016, two scientists, Rob DeConto and Dave Pollard, wrote a paper that appeared in Nature Magazine. There's two major science journals in the English-speaking world. There's Science and there's Nature. You 5.A.e Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 16 of 78 see something quoted about COVID or asteroids or sea level rise or evolution, it's going to be in one of those two. I used to subscribe to both, but now a buddy subscribed to Nature, and we swap every week. They come out weekly, because science changes so quickly. Well, DeConto and Pollard wrote a paper about Antarctica melting a lot faster than they thought, but that didn't include Greenland, and it didn't include land-based glaciers and whatever. And when you looked at what they wrote, you know, it caught my eye, because they said that the sea level rise may be four feet from that, and then you add the others to it, and you're talking six feet by the year 2100 and high tide being, like, three, and the average elevation of the Everglades being, like, six. The first thing that caught my eye was we're losing the Everglades. So I wrote Dr. DeConto and Pollard, and they sent me to Ben Strauss with Climate Central who, you know, we talked, and he kind of convinced me that, yeah, we're going to lose the Everglades. And I'm looking at all these restoration programs we have going, and, you know, we're throwing money down the drain. But also the rising of the sea -- you saw the exhibit he put up about where the water's going to be around the airport. Well, roads have road base under them. When that gets saturated, the road base kind of gets spongy, and the roads start to fail. Long before you lose the houses, long before the road floods, it starts to fail because the base is flooded. The base gets saturated. So there's a lot of -- I'm happy to see this going forward. When I was on the Planning Commission, I -- once or twice I brought up sea level rise, and back in those days, under Governor Scott, it was not an item that was well received. I'm glad to see that people are finally starting to pay a little bit of attention to it. And I am sure that your model is going to at least get somebody's attention. Thank you very much, and have a nice day. And, Terri, if you want to know how to spell that, I'll send it to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Chrzanowski. Any other registered speakers? No. Anyone in the room who is not -- or Mr. Bosi, go ahead, please. MR. BOSI: I just wanted to make the Planning Commission aware, we have Chris Mason available. He is the county's floodplain manager related to FEMA and related issues. I know we had just a little bit of discussion related to insurance regulation and FEMA issues. We just brought him here just in case -- not to make a presentation. Just in case you had any questions for him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Appreciate that. Any persons in the audience who did not register but wish to speak on this matter, please raise your hands. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, anything else from the Planning Commission on this before we move from a statement of the problem to some possible solutions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, Ned, I would -- I would be interested in hearing from the gentleman from the county just in how this tool might be used by the floodplain managers at your discretion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's entirely in order. COMMISSIONER FRY: You came all this way. I figured we needed to -- we owed you an opportunity to speak. MR. MASON: Sure, sure. It's a pleasure to speak here today. My name is Chris Mason. I am the floodplain coordinator for the county. As far as what our department does, I work directly with the Building Department. We're located in the floodplain management section, which is basically a subset to the Building 5.A.e Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 17 of 78 Department. And the current regulations and ordinances that we enforce are based on the Florida Building Code and also FEMA regulations. So at this time the Florida Building Code requires a one foot of elevation above what we call the base flood elevation or what is the elevation of the 100-year flood event. As far as the modeling goes for the ACUNE program, again, as it was explained, that -- the elevation of the water that's shown in there or the modeling is shown to be the 100-year flood on top of sea level rise, if I understood that correctly. MS. WOLIVER: Nuisance flooding. MR. MASON: Nuisance flooding. So the FEMA maps do not incorporate that data. The FEMA maps incorporate historical storm data against topographic data, and that's contained in our flood insurance study. And so FEMA, and its contractors, what they do is they do their own modeling, which is a separate product from this ACUNE program and, again, that only covers historic flooding or historic storms and topographic data. So that's what derives your 100-year floodplain. And as far as we, again, enforce our building regulations, that's, again, based on the Florida Building Code which has incorporated the "one foot above base flood elevation" requirement for commercial and residential structures. A tool like this could be used to go in and update ordinances. There are communities around the country that go beyond the minimum. At this point in time, FEMA's minimum is to build at base flood elevation. They don't have that one-plus-foot requirement. That's a state-driven requirement. There are communities around the country that have gone to two feet and three feet above base flood elevations, but those are written into their own local ordinances, and I suspect some of that is planning on sea level rise, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MASON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And no one else is signaling at this point. So, yes, Dr. Hushon. DR. HUSHON: One of the other things I just thought I'd point out, Dr. Sheng, who is the author of the model, he has said repeatedly that the storms are getting worse. They are intensifying closer to land, and they are retaining their intensity longer when they're on land than was historically true. And that's if you go back to the old storms versus the newer storms. And so when he has been modeling the storm impact -- if you turn on storm, which is one of the little dots you can hit, we really didn't do storm today. We never turned on that dot. But if you had turned on that dot, it is a little worse storm than it used to be if you use just the historic data because he weights it to the more modern data. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. ***The first matter coming before us today on our formal agenda is PL20210001271. It is the EAR-based CCME Growth Management Plan amendment. It's coming to us for adoption. We've already heard it back, I think, in June. We heard it on transmittal. It is legislative in nature. We don't need to swear in witnesses, and we don't need to make disclosures. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Sabo. MR. SABO: Good morning, Commissioners. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager for the county. I won't belabor this any longer. Our recommendation is that you approve this as the land planning agency for the county and forward the CCME proposed amendments to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit their adoption to the Florida DEO, and I'll entertain any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Sabo, are there any changes that have been made since we 5.A.e Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 18 of 78 heard this for transmittal? MR. SABO: We have not. It essentially reflects House Bill 1094, and that's directly from the state legislature. COMMISSIONER FRY: As we discussed it back then, it was really mandated by the state, and this is really boilerplate they've provided that we're inserting into our codes, correct? MR. SABO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And, again, this is just setting a target for when we'll have some plans in place to address what we previously heard in the previous presentation of sea level rise? MR. SABO: That is correct, Commissioner Shea. It requires the use of best practices. If the county finds that ACUNE is the best practice, then, of course, they would utilize that model. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a question: It does say in here this item requires ex parte disclosure on the agenda. Is that incorrect? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is incorrect. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? Anyone else signaling? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a few comments, a very few, and I'll try to keep it brief. First of all, what portion from 100 percent on down is this an unfunded mandate from Tallahassee? MR. SABO: Well, I have not read about any money coming our way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I thought. Okay. And I'm not personally opposed to it, but I will point out the inconsistent or anomaly at least in a very recent mandate that came down from Tallahassee declaring as sancrosact -- sacrosanct certain property rights that we were required to approve and we did approve, and now this comes down and cautions us that certain things such as emergency egress in the event of a flood and types of constructions that can occur on the west side of the flood line, we must be mindful of. And, once again, it seems as though there's a great deal of sausage being made up in Tallahassee; that our job is simply to eat it and say thank you very much. I see these as conflicting. We don't have any choice about it, and -- but I wanted to make that point. And also One Naples was mentioned by Commissioner Fry. And it's my understanding that One Naples is 50/50; that half of it is seaward of the coastal construction control line -- and go ahead. MR. BOSI: The Coastal High Hazard Area. It's half and half within the Coastal High Hazard Area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Coastal High Hazard Area, okay. So I'm just wondering out loud; maybe there's no answer to this question: Had this statute come down for our mandate enactment before One Naples, would that, perhaps, have changed the action or at least the way we had looked at it? If you want to comment on that, I'd be glad to hear a comment. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. I would say if we were at the end of the task that's required by this amendment of the CCME, then possibly it could have informed the -- it could have informed some of the discussions in a more elaborate way related to inundation related to sea level rise and some of the resiliency strategies that we are going to be developing over that course of time. So, yes, I think it could have, but that would have been a little bit further down the road than just us adopting. This adopting means we're going to -- the time clock is starting for us to get this -- the resiliency study done, but yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And this had actually been a major point of Chairman Strain who expressed on multiple occasions his concerns about evacuation and sheltering 5.A.e Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 19 of 78 in the event of a hurricane. And I notice Point No. 12 of Exhibit A calls upon us to consider hurricane evacuation and sheltering when we approve projects that are high density, high intensity. Also, No. 14, reduction of flood risks, I'm not sure exactly how we do that other than try to pare down the size of projects. But these are all questions that I think we will need to address going forward. And I don't have any further comments to offer on it. Anybody else want to be heard at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it's here for us on adoption. We've heard from staff. Any registered speakers, Mr. Youngblood? No registered speakers. Anyone in the room who has not registered but wishes to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. With that, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing, and we'll take up our deliberation and action on the question of recommending adoption. Who'd like to begin? You can begin with a motion, or you can begin with a comment. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to adopt and transmit. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we recommend adoption of this GMPA to the Board of County Commissioners and that upon adoption it be forwarded to the State of Florida for official recording. Any further the discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously; that is to say by a vote of 4 to nothing. All right. It's eight minutes after 10. I suggest that we now take a 10-minute break, our midmorning break, and then we can come back, and we can hear the St. Matthews matter. We stand in recess for 10 minutes until 10:18. (A brief recess was had from 10:08 a.m. to 10:18 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's reconvene, please. ***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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 20 of 78 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I amend mine? I did make a staff visit -- a site visit as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. 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 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 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 them. They do not have an actual height definition or limitation. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 21 of 78 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 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 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. 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 22 of 78 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 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. 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 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. So all of these are integral parts of our mission, and it's really about serving people, 5.A.e Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 23 of 78 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 homelessness. 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 '94, 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 24 of 78 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 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 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 25 of 78 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 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 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 26 of 78 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, 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 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. 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 27 of 78 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 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 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. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 28 of 78 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 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 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, 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 29 of 78 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 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 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. 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. 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 -- 5.A.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 30 of 78 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 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. 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 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, 5.A.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 31 of 78 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 does. 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 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 32 of 78 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 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, okay. 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 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 33 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think that's Segment 6 of Airport, and I believe we've had testimony in previous hearings that, broadly 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 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 34 of 78 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 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 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 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 C-4. 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 35 of 78 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. 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 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, 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 36 of 78 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, 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 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? 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 raise money for -- through the 5.A.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 37 of 78 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... 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. 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 38 of 78 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.) 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. 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 39 of 78 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 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. 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 40 of 78 A lot of these calls, like a trespassing, in 2021 we don't have any calls, and in 2018 we only 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. 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 41 of 78 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 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 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, 89 -- 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 42 of 78 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 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 -- 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 43 of 78 name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, 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 housekeeping matter, and I -- we have, for the record, two submittals that we made: One 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 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 11th hour. MR. PIRES: Okay. But if I can, for the 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 44 of 78 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. 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 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. 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 11th 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 transportation engineer, traffic engineer, that the project is inconsistent with the Growth 5.A.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 45 of 78 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, 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 almost in the homeless shelter beds, we don't 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 '60s and '70s and '80s, 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. 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: Put that back up again. That was quick. 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 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 assessed nor evaluated. And in the 5.A.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 46 of 78 commercial, there's an addition of an industrial district use 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 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 47 of 78 a -- just an example of the workforce housing. It's owner operated. I'm sorry. It was acquired in 2016. I 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 appreciate you giving Ms. Sinnott an opportunity to speak. 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 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 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 you don't mind, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. PIRES: Thank you. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 48 of 78 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 up all of that area. 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 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? 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? 5.A.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 49 of 78 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 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 how to pronounce her last name. But we have a manager there currently named Abbey. We have a 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. 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. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- that maybe we might have contributed to it, but... MS. SINNOTT: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Do you have any more? 5.A.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 50 of 78 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. 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? 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? 5.A.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 51 of 78 MS. SINNOTT: Three or four weeks of not 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 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 the slide. You had four bullets. You talked about mission. And I want to look at that third sentence. 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 52 of 78 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, convenience. 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 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 53 of 78 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. 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. 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 54 of 78 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 aspects of the Growth Management Plan. It's not only directing intensity and density of development 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 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. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 55 of 78 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 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. 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 56 of 78 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 PUD evaluation for the following reasons: Both the county staff, in their report, 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. 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 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 57 of 78 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? 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 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 violation? 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 58 of 78 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 -- 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 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 59 of 78 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 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? 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 understand that. 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. 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 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 -- 5.A.e Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 60 of 78 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 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? 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 proposing. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 61 of 78 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 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. 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 come into -- 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 62 of 78 MS. WARD: You do today under the current code. 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 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 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. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 63 of 78 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. 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 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 64 of 78 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. 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 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 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. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 65 of 78 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 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. 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 66 of 78 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 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 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. 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 67 of 78 That's what we do here. You know, DOT requires consistently for us to do the traffic data and then look at the 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 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. 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 also reviewed the TIS for this particular PUD? MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm not aware of that. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 68 of 78 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.) 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 69 of 78 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. 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 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 be prepared to do to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. 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, and -- MR. BROODER: That's true. That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- frankly, I was somewhat concerned about that. Could you 5.A.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 70 of 78 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. 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? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Because there are only 104 bunks there. 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. 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 71 of 78 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 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 kitchen there. And do the homeless people go in there to eat? 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 72 of 78 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 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 -- 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. 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? 5.A.e Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 73 of 78 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? 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, 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 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. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 74 of 78 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 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 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 75 of 78 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 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 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... 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 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 76 of 78 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 any good. 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 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. 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 5.A.e Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 77 of 78 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 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 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? 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 continuance till that date, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 2, 2021 Page 78 of 78 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. That takes us to old business, of which there is none, I don't believe. New business, I don't believe there's any of that either. Any members of the public who wish to be heard on something that has not been on our agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands raised, then we will move directly to adjournment. We are adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:21 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on __________, as presented _________ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: 12-02-21 CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 1 of 48 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 16, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Joe Schmitt 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 5.A.f Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 2 of 48 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone. I'm going to begin by sticking my neck out and wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Holidays for anyone else. And having said that, welcome to the December 16, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, roll call, please, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chairman Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addenda to the agenda. I've spoken with Mr. Bellows this morning, and it is proposed that we move the scrivener's error matter to the end, and so the second item we'll hear would be the Cruz matter. Are there any other addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So I assume there's no objection to our moving those around. It just makes sense to have the matters represented by counsel and members of the public first off. So, without objection, that's what we'll do. The planning commissioners who are absent, those absences have been excused. We are not going to be meeting on January 6th because we have no matters to hear. So, therefore, our next meeting is January 20, 2022. And does anyone know whether he or she will not be here at that time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. We hope, then, to have a quorum. Approval of the minutes; we have none before us today for action. BCC report/recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On last Tuesday the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use and Growth Management Plan amendment for the Iglesia Pentecostes Church. That motion -- or that motion was for denial, and that passed 4-1. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The denial passed 4-1. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: There was also the Growth Management Amendment for the Collier Boulevard mixed-use subdistrict. That was approved 5-0. The Green Boulevard conditional use and variance was approved 5-0. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 3 of 48 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What was the first one? MR. BELLOWS: The church. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, the first approval. MR. BELLOWS: That was -- for the Green Boulevard? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That was a communication tower that was approved 5-0. And then the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, that was continued? MR. BOSI: The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District was tabled to a February workshop based upon a number of issues the Board of County Commissioners wanted to revisit. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What was the actual issue regarding the RFMUD? MR. BOSI: Density. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For a particular petitioner? MR. BOSI: Not for a petitioner. There was a number of individuals within the northwest receiving area that objected to the increased density for affordable housing. Even though that northwest quadrant really has very few developable acres left, there was just, I guess, an objection on principle. So we will go -- we're going to have a workshop and walk through the steps with the Board of County Commissioners, but also that workshop has been also expanded in a sense that they want to talk about the need for multifamily housing, additional housing units because of the lack of affordability, and there has been a recent issue, it seems like, within our apartment complexes of rents being raised an inordinate amount that has outpriced a number of individual workers who spoke at that meeting as well as previous meetings in terms of affordability within this -- within the county. So it's a February workshop that's going to be informative on a lot of different areas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Chairman's report; none today. Consent agenda; none today. ***Public hearings, advertised, the first matter is PL2021000176. It's the St. Matthew's House CPUD. And you'll recall this was continued from our December 2, 2021, meeting. You'll also recall that counsel for certain adjacent neighbors and for the applicant had represented that they thought that there might be an agreed-upon solution near at hand, and so that's why we continued the matter. All persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures starting with Mr. Eastman, please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No disclosures outside of the materials in the public record. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Since my previous ex parte disclosures, I have reviewed the additional material that has been made public and had meetings with staff and conversations with counsel for the applicant and certain adjacent neighbors. Plus, I made a second site visit to view the potential security issues which I raised two weeks ago. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing different except emails from last time. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I simply had conversations with staff and staff material. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Without further ado, Mr. Yovanovich, the Chair recognizes you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe where we left off was the public comment was complete, and if we reached a deal, we'd present the deal. If we didn't reach a deal, I would do rebuttal and 5.A.f Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 4 of 48 closing. Am I correct that public comment is done unless a commissioner pulls somebody up to ask them -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And I just want to emphasize that we did, indeed, close public comment, and what that does is that forecloses initiatives on the part of the public to speak, but initiatives from the Planning Commission to ask anyone to speak or to be heard is always within our purview, but you are correct, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we submitted, and I believe is in your packet, is a redline of the PUD incorporating the changes requested from the Planning Commission at its last meeting. And if I can, I'll just put them on the visualizer. We'll go over them real quick, make sure I caught them all. And I will -- before I do that, in response to your -- the Chair's questions regarding security, let me tell you what we already do as security for St. Matthew's House and the adjacent property. I hope that will satisfy the Planning Commission that we are serious about security for the property. What we have is basically from the afternoon on through the evening, we have security on site. They're there. They walk the grounds frequently to make sure the grounds are secure and people are not vandalizing the property and are making sure it's safe. We also have video cameras on the buildings to make sure that nothing's happening to the buildings. And if you've been there, you will see we have a fence that runs the length of the old automobile ship -- automobile dealership, and we have a fence on Tract A as well. So it's not that we're not taking security seriously. We take security very seriously and, as you know, we do background checks before people could stay. So that is how we are handling security today, and we'll continue to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, just clarifying. So I'm getting the impression it's St. Matthew's House's position that security on site is your full responsibility, but that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- limiting homeless camps outside the borders of the parcel that you own and control is not within the realm of responsibility for St. Matthew's House, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have no legal authority to go onto someone else's property and tell somebody who's there to leave. They have that authority. If they are uncomfortable dealing with the person directly, they have the ability to call a sheriff's deputy to assist them in doing that, but we have no legal authority to do that. And forcing us to take on that responsibility, we think, is inappropriate and can be, frankly, dangerous to us if we would have to approach people and shoo them away on someone else's piece of property. The appropriate way to handle that is to call a sheriff's deputy to assist if that happens. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for the clarification. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So I'll go page by page as to the changes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I just ask you a question on the fence? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is the fence around the entire east side, both Tract A and Tract B, or just at the DeVoe building? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you remember, there's a solid wall on part of the DeVoe property, and then there's a fence on the DeVoe property, and then there's a fence on Tract A. There is a gap. There's probably a 30-foot gap, I think, between the Tract A and the beginning of the wall on Tract B. We're happy to fill that gap to make sure that there's a continuous secured fence along the way. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So as you can -- as you can see -- maybe we should zoom out a little bit, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. The first change is under the permitted use category. We made it clear that the beds can 5.A.f Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 5 of 48 only be on Tract A, and I believe the Planning Commission had directed and we had agreed to that all principal uses must be owned by a not-for-profit corporation. So we made that change. Under the principal uses on Tract A, we excluded nonresidential, probation offices, refugee services, and public welfare centers. I believe that was at the request of the Planning Commission. The next page, I think, is Tract B. We had moved to -- we had moved to an accessory use the warehousing. Originally it was a permitted use on Tract B, but we were requested to confirm that that was accessory to the principal uses, which we did. And we moved that to an accessory use on Tract B, and that allows both refrigerated and, you know, donated furniture to be stored on site as an accessory use. We had agreed to make it clear, again, that residential care, homeless shelters, and group facilities are prohibited on Tract B. So we've said it in multiple locations throughout this document that the homeless shelter can only be on Tract A. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, does that, then, limit you to your proposed size in terms of future ability to expand on Tract A if you needed to expand the homeless shelter and add beds? MR. YOVANOVICH: We would have to come back through the public-hearing process again to go above 150 beds. COMMISSIONER FRY: There still is space. If you wanted to add onto the building, you could apply and come back and add onto the building? MR. YOVANOVICH: We could build a second floor. We could raze what's there today and replace it with a new structure. But to go above 150 beds, we will have to come back through this public-hearing process. We clarified the setback under -- from the eastern boundary, which is the apartment complex, that it applies to the principal and additions to principal structures constructed after the adoption of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm not getting anything on my screen, and I don't think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not seeing you lit up either. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We're not getting that. COMMISSIONER FRY: He's talking about our monitors. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's not on mine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not on mine either. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then if you could follow along on the screen. I hope you can see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is this in our packet as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it should be. We transmitted it to the county the Monday after Thursday's meeting. We had clarified that the requested deviation as to the square footage -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we'll hear you and pay more attention to you after we get this completed. MR. MILLER: Just a second, Rich. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Troy. Thank you, sir. Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I got on the Internet without any help today. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then we clarified that the deviation is -- only applies to Tract A for the square footage of the -- again, the theme is make it very clear that the homeless shelter beds were all on Tract A. We had also agreed, if you recall, that any new overhead doors would not face the adjacent residential property. We had agreed to limit hours of operation for loading and unloading to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. And I have a feeling that your packet doesn't have this, because I'm hearing the murmuring in the background that maybe this is the first time you're seeing it. And that no deliveries, loading or unloading -- this is actually -- we had agreed to this with 5.A.f Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 6 of 48 the neighbors that no deliveries, loading or unloading, would be by tractor trailers. They didn't want the big, noisy trucks delivering. And we had agreed and -- that at the time we redevelop the property we would put a buffer along our eastern boundary. That we had put that in in good faith based upon discussions with the neighbors, and apparently we transmitted that to the county a couple weeks ago. We're not going to take that back, but we wanted to show that we had agreed to provide a buffer along our eastern boundary even though when they bought the property there was no buffer along the eastern boundary, and they were fully aware of the uses on the property, and I'll get into that in my close. So we have negotiated in good faith and have made revisions to the PUD that I think will hopefully address the conversations that occurred at the last meeting. And if you have any questions of me or any of our experts, we're happy to address that; otherwise, I'll go into my closing remarks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any members of the Planning Commission wish to be heard at this time? I have a number of questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, unfortunately, I read the document that you asked me not to read, because I read it before I got your email saying don't read it. And I also got a similar but not identical one from Mr. Pires. They're very close. There are some typographical differences. And I recognize that you have withdrawn the changes, and I am respectful of that. But I want to be sure that we all know what remains open and what you would agree to. So I'm going to go through each of these, and you can tell me -- and in some respects, this may be redundant. MR. YOVANOVICH: With all due respect, I don't think -- I appreciate that you read it, but putting me in a position to respond to a document that I asked you not to read because -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd already read it, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. But you're putting it in the record when I asked that it not be part of the record, because it was an agreement based upon negotiations. I was told to transmit it to you, and then I was told the agreement was taken back. So now I'm going to get on the record, you're going to ask me if I'm still willing to do these things when they won't commit to us to support something, and I don't think that's right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm absolutely going to ask you each and every one of these things, and if you want to make a record now that you're reserving rights to object or to appeal or do anything you want, go right ahead and do it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What's the basis for doing that when it's not something that -- he's explained to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, he went through about half of the things, I think, that show up in this, and I want to be sure that I know what the other half is. I didn't make notes when he went through that and I, therefore, would like to have clarification. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it's not an agreement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, it's not an agreement. And I am respectful of the fact that it is not an agreement, but some of the items appear to have been agreed to, and I would like to -- even in view of the fact that it might be repetitious, I would still like to know what is agreed to and what isn't, because some of the points that he mentioned, such as the hours of operation and others that I caught, which are in this document -- and I'm not going to go through the whole document. I'm just going to go through the things that are new and are significant to me, unless there's an objection from the Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I'm going to note on the record we negotiated those agreements in good faith based upon the reciprocal agreement that if this becomes part of the ordinance, they would remove -- they would withdraw their opposition. In good faith, I transmitted that to you. When I was told that they no longer agreed to support us even though we 5.A.f Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 7 of 48 had made those agreements, I don't think it's appropriate, because now you've seen it, to now ask me if I'm still willing to agree to it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just, you know, fall back on, you know, the principles, you know, when these things come up in legal situations that those kind of negotiations and offers are normally not, then, something that the tribunal, which we're the equivalent of, has access to, because it wasn't -- it ended up not being agreed to. And you can't hold people or pester people -- excuse me -- not pester -- you know, ask a lot of questions about things that the parties negotiated privately in good faith, and in this case thought they had an agreement and then transmitted it only with the idea that it was something that both sides agreed to, and now you're going to, you know, ask a bunch of detailed questions about it. I think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you don't know what I'm going to ask, but I've got a -- what may be a compromised solution. I'm going to ask Mr. Yovanovich to refer to his document and simply cover the subjects. It's going to be a little repetitious, I know, because he just did, but there are issues that show up in the redlining, and I would like to hear once more for the record what he is willing to agree to and what he's not, and then we'll see what's left over. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll go back through what I just went back through. Exhibit A, we agree to these revisions that will make it very clear that the homeless beds can only be on Tract A and that all principal uses have to be owned by a not-for-profit corporation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We agreed under principal uses to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And these are still things that you're still willing to agree to, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: I agreed to these things in front of you-all two weeks ago. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Keep going, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: We agreed to exclude nonresidential probation offices, refugee services, and public welfare centers. We had agreed to that at the last meeting. We had also agreed to remove from the principal uses on Tract B -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you go there, the -- no, no. Continue. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: On Tract B, we had general warehousing, both refrigerated and unrefrigerated. We were asked to remove that as a principal use and put it as an accessory use. So we removed -- you can see on Tract B we no longer have warehousing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the refrigerated, what did you say about that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We moved it to an accessory use to be operated with a not-for-profit food bank only, the refrigerated portion. We have unrefrigerated stuff where people drop off donations that we then distribute to the different thrift stores. That would continue to occur as it is today, and that would be an accessory use. It can't be a stand-alone operation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What about prosecutions under SIC 9222; are you still -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I just ask a real basic question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So we have -- I have Page 25 of the 555-page agenda. Is that the current version that we're looking at on the overhead? Is it the same thing, the list of permitted uses? MR. BOSI: No. In coordination with the principal planner, the version that Mr. Yovanovich had transmitted two weeks ago did not appear in your guy's package. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the question on the floor -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm going to ignore, then, this, because it's -- well, it's mostly the same, but we're talking about the changes. So I have to follow here, okay, on the overhead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My question, then, is on prosecutions, 9222. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to do two things at once and not doing either one of 5.A.f Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 8 of 48 them well. What our question was -- I believe those had to do with -- and I closed the book. Give me two seconds. The 9222 -- so the only one you want to leave is the public prosecutor use? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you've got legal counsel and prosecution, 9222. And I'm okay with legal counsel, but prosecution seems like a non-sequitur. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, we'll take out public prosecutor and Public Defender Offices. The remainder will be -- I'll read them to you. There's only four others: Attorney General's Office, district attorneys, legal counsel offices, government, and U.S. attorney's offices. That's what 9222 is. So if the county wanted -- if we had an office building on that site and the county wanted to put those offices there, we would -- we were going to allow them to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So what would you remove? MR. YOVANOVICH: We would take out public defenders and public prosecutors. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what you have in your packet or possibly have in your packet someone accepted some of the changes and they no longer show as strikethroughs. For instance, I'll show you what I had submitted, why I got confused. I had submitted the deletions, so everybody can see it, but what I'm showing you now is some of the version is clean, some of it is still strikethrough. So if you'll permit me, I'll just work through the strikethrough and underline, which is what I hope you have in your packet. Nothing's changing from what we already committed to to this point. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just want to ask other commissioners. I do not think I have the strikethrough and redline in the packet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This didn't come in the packet. It came in a separate -- staff sent it to us a few days ago, so it wasn't in the basic packet. That came as a standalone. MR. YOVANOVICH: Was it a supplement? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And so far, Mr. Shea, you can -- this is what we submitted. So if I get it wrong, you'll -- can you let me know? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had -- and I had met that -- we had clarified that setbacks from the eastern building would apply to principal buildings -- principal structures and additions to principal structures constructed after 1/25/2022. We put another note on the master plan to make it clear that it's to be located on Tract A only, and we had agreed, again, to add that the 150 beds would be on Tract A only, and I believe that is it that we had agreed to and should be in your packet. There were -- there may be -- there was another submittal that was made by me yesterday that I took back, so that was -- it was an email that I copied everybody on. You didn't get it, Mr. Fry, because thankfully I left the "v" off, so you didn't get tempted to read it -- when I said gov, so yours came back. And Mr. Vernon's came back. But I didn't get any -- didn't notice from anybody else that the email I sent to your county -- they would have been to your county emails -- came back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Where are you on any concessions to be made on loading and unloading and hours of operation? MR. YOVANOVICH: They were in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not able to see it on the -- I'm not saying it isn't there; I'm just not able to see it because of my eyesight. MR. YOVANOVICH: Page 9 of 9, we had agreed no overhead doors facing the adjacent residential properties. Loading and unloading would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays, so nothing on Sunday, and we had agreed to no deliveries, loading or unloading, by tractor trailers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Under landscaping, buffering, fencing, and security. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 9 of 48 MR. YOVANOVICH: Those were all in negotiations. Those are off the table. We had said that B -- you can see B on the screen. If you could see B, this is how we're willing to address landscaping. It says at the time of issuance of any development order -- actually, we had clarified. This isn't the right version. We had said SDP or SDPA. This is Tony's version. This is -- that's -- I'm reading from Mr. Pires' version on that part. We had agreed to install a buffer along our eastern boundary. When we pulled a new SDP or an SDPA, we would install a 15-foot-wide landscape buffer along our eastern boundary. COMMISSIONER FRY: That currently does not exist? MR. YOVANOVICH: It does not exist. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that -- well, that seemed to indicate that you -- you mentioned the 30 feet you would connect the wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had a -- we have a fence, and I said we're committed to connecting that 30 feet from Tract A to the wall, and that is in currently, or do we need to add that? It's not. We have to add that. COMMISSIONER FRY: We have to add that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So just let me have you clarify. So you said you had agreed to that paragraph, but that's no longer part of what you're willing to agree to? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had said -- we had said we would install a buffer along the eastern boundary, and we have to do an SDPA or SDP. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So that's still in play? And when you said that's no longer -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's still in existence. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- in existence, you're saying it doesn't exist yet. It needs to be put in place? COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it exists as an agreement. MR. YOVANOVICH: It exists -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Because you spoke about it as "had." I just -- meaning that you previously had agreed to it and you still agreed it. Sorry about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're still agreeing to it. We're not taking it back. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Got it. (Interruption by the stenographer for clarification.) MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. With respect to the homeless people who spend the night outdoors near by, near the property, are you in a position to identify for us where those homeless people -- showing us on a map where that problem exists? MR. YOVANOVICH: The only thing I could -- no, they brought the issue up. They're not people staying with us. As you know, the people who stay with us stay indoors. They have a bed. They have a locker. They have food. The whole issue, if you recall, had to do with since 1988 St. Matthew's House has been providing food to people who need food, and that includes the homeless. That is not part of this PUD. And, apparently, some homeless people or a homeless person -- I don't know. They showed you a camp -- camped out in their woods. They're not our guests. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're not able, then, to identify for us where this problem exists? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It's their -- they put up on the visualizer an example of a camp. We don't patrol their property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, that's fair enough. If you don't know, you don't know, but I'm going to try to find out. Any other questions or comments at this time from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 10 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What was the basis for the agreement falling apart? You know, the agreement that you mentioned, you know, that you had transmitted and then -- why did that end up not being an agreement? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the public-record document sent by one of the attorneys for the apartment basically said that his client has not agreed to all of the terms and has not agreed to withdraw their objection, so that's kind of how it fell apart. We did work together rather nicely up until yesterday afternoon or morning. But his client has said they will no -- they cannot agree to withdraw their objection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like to just kind of talk about a few points that relate to our petition and the apartment complex. Can I go back to the podium? Do I just push "podium"? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Got it. The yellow area is what we're in to do as a PUD. On the north side, up here, that is where the homeless shelter currently exists, and that's where we want to put the new 46 beds. There is a portion here and here, that is the old Pontiac PUD, and then this portion is zoned C-4 today. We want to bring all of that into one PUD and have unified zoning regulations applicable to the property. This piece right here, by the way, is currently zoned C-4. We are -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't want to interrupt you, Rich. When you're done, I have a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are simply trying to continue to fulfill a mission that started back in 1988 with the feeding ministry for people who needed food, which included the homeless. St. Matthew's House has provided shelter to the homeless that want to better themselves and agree to certain rules and regulations when they stay at the shelter and, as you heard, that includes background checks and also Breathalyzers when they come back to stay in the evening. These people are in need of services. They -- we all know it's a problem. It's a problem everywhere. It's a problem in Collier County. I don't know where you-all park. You probably don't park over by the snack shop, but if you go by there, every day you'll see 22 gentlemen sitting out there. I'm assuming they're homeless. I don't know that for a fact. It's a problem in Collier County, and St. Matthew's House has been addressing that problem with its 104 beds. We're simply asking within the same footprint to add 46 more beds so we can handle or help more people who are on the waiting list. And who are those people who are on the waiting list? There's 12 families that are on the waiting list. Some of them -- or one of them is living in her car with a three-year-old daughter. Hopefully she's going to get in on Friday. You have 16 males; five of them are living in a car. We don't know where seven of them are. And there's four that are currently at a mental health facility. Then you have 18 females on the waiting list; two that are living in cars, two at mental health facilities, and 14 we don't know where they are. They're probably hopefully going from sofa to sofa at someone's house; otherwise, they're living outdoors. This has been an important ministry that has been taken up by St. Matthew's House without any money coming from Collier County. This is a not-for-profit doing, as their website says, God's work because, depending on your beliefs, we're supposed to take care of those who are less fortunate, and that is exactly what they're doing. It's, frankly, appalling and upsetting to me that an apartment owner who doesn't live here who sent someone to talk about things she has no personal knowledge and doesn't live in Collier County is now objecting to uses that existed at the time they bought the property. They bought the property in 2016. December 14, 2016, they bought this apartment complex for 34 million, 500 dollars. I'm assuming, and they said, they did their due diligence. So they knew what's on your screen existed at the time they bought the property. They knew what the buffer situation was. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 11 of 48 They knew what the fencing situation was. They knew everything. They knew there was a homeless shelter on Tract A with 104 beds. St. Matt's acquired the old automobile dealership in 2013. Shortly thereafter -- and that was in May of 2013. Shortly thereafter they opened up their thrift store that you see and the loading area for delivery and accepting of donations. Currently they house their food off site. They'd like to bring that on site. All of this existed when the apartment complex was purchased by the current objector. All we're doing is adding 46 beds. All the uses that are on that site we have the right today to expand under the existing zoning and, frankly, under C-4 zoning do a lot more than what we're asking for today. They want us to spend donors' money to put buffers in that they should have put in on their own property. They want us to buffer us when it must have been acceptable to them in 2016 to have the buffering that's there today, but now they want a buffer because we want to put 46 beds in Tract A up here. That's where we want to put 46 beds, and now they want to buffer the entire length of their boundary when it was perfectly acceptable to them in 2016 to not have a buffer. We've agreed to do that. It ain't cheap, but we'll do it. This is an important, very important ministry. And I'm assuming you've read Tony's letter to you about the rents that are allegedly being charged to live in the Heron Point apartment complex. I think Mr. Pires said that the one-bedrooms are being rented at $1,151 per month, and the range goes to the three-bedrooms of $1,375 a month. That's not factually correct. How do I know that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You realize you're opening the door by doing this. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can ask him any questions you want about rent. I'm perfectly fine with your pulling him up here and asking him questions about rent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll see how far it goes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I'm talking about is the rent. How do we know that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, you can finish your point. You were going to mention what the rents are. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. I'm going to mention what the rents are today because I think it's really important to put into consideration the apartment owner's motivations in now requiring us to spend money to put in buffers. We know for a fact that a letter went to tenants notifying them when it's time to renew their lease that their $1,100-a-month one-bedroom is $1,600 a month. That's a 45 percent, ballpark, increase; 45 percent increase. I don't know about most people, but I don't think anybody -- most people got a 45 percent raise last year to now be able to live in those apartments when they said it was workforce housing in their opening statement. It's not workforce housing. The rents -- because I called. I kind of got a little excited. I said, you know, that's pretty cheap. I can maybe bring my daughter home, and she can live there. So I called. I said, what does it cost for a one-bedroom? She goes, we don't have any; we're full. But should one become available, our worst unit, which I don't know what that means, probably first floor, is $1,570, not $1,151. The two-bedroom worst unit -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm trying to figure out, this doesn't -- I'm trying to figure out the relevance of what they charge for rent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because they said to you -- this is in their documents that this is workforce housing, and somehow, by our having a homeless shelter, is affecting the value in their property, and what I'm trying to point out is that's not a true argument because they feel perfectly comfortable increasing their rents across the board by $500 a month. We are in no way affecting the value of their property because we're a homeless shelter and we want to do 46 more beds. They made that argument, and I'm trying to dispel that argument. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I did have my question. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 12 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just was wondering, am I right that that's the county complex right to the south where we're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, and where they're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's you, us. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So isn't -- I'm just trying to get a flavor. Isn't there, like, a lot of criminal -- I was trying to figure out what the objection is to the prosecutor or the defense. I mean, don't we have, like, law enforcement there with people who are, you know, criminals, you know, being held there all the time? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. You have a jail. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. I'm just trying to figure out how this is all relevant and why someone who lives next to a place where there's all sorts of criminal -- you know, criminals coming in, and the same kind of prosecutor or defense counsel situations seems like it's right next door anyways. Where do these people -- you keep mentioning the objector. You keep, you know, referring seemingly to specific individuals. And I apologize, I was not at the prior hearing. Who is it that's objecting, and what land do they own? MR. YOVANOVICH: The objector is a business entity that owns this apartment complex right here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the only objector. And I would submit that adding 46 beds in the same footprint in no way negatively affects the neighborhood and negatively affects the neighbor. And we would respectfully request, based upon the prior testimony from Mr. Brooder, that the 150-foot per square foot -- the 150 feet -- square foot per person is an appropriate standard for this piece of property and for this homeless shelter. Your staff is recommending approval of the amendments. The public -- the expert testimony from your staff and from Mr. Arnold and our experts support that we have met the criteria. And with that, we're open to answer any questions, and we're hopeful that you will submit this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two questions, Rich. First -- and this is partly for your benefit, Robb. Just asking you to clarify. I think when Mr. Brooder was up I asked him -- you know, one of the questions was how can you reduce the square footage per resident from 150 to 100 without an adverse effect on them, limiting their space; how can you possibly say that's a neutral change, not a negative change? And I'd just like you to clarify -- I mean, Mr. Brooder clarified, I know you weren't here, Robb, about how this space would be reapportioned. It was not reducing the space they currently have in terms of beds and bunks. It was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think if it's -- I would rather have Mr. Brooder -- COMMISSIONER FRY: That would be great. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- so I don't want to mis-paraphrase what he testified to, and I think -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And if I could -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could I ask a question before -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Now -- it was a good question, and I'm trying to remember what it was. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a not so good question I can ask while you're thinking about it. Before Mr. Brooder comes up, the drawing you have up there is perfect. Are you 5.A.f Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 13 of 48 committing to the buffer and the continuous fence on the entire border which, to me, would be a -- you know, the top, the middle, and the bottom adjacent to that apartment complex? Are you saying that would be a good -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking about from this? And it's not writing; sorry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, if you're able to show where exactly that buffer you're offering is, is it the entire perimeter? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. It's along Tract A, which is here. So it would be -- if you could follow my finger. COMMISSIONER FRY: It cuts back all the way -- all the way from top -- north to south the entire border, we'll either have -- we'll have this 15-foot Type B buffer? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have a fence and wall combination, because we already have a wall. So the fence will connect to the wall, the existing wall. And then we have a fence that will now make it contiguous the entire length. What we said was along Tract B, which is right here, the parking lot and Lulu's Kitchen and the thrift store, if we come in and we basically redevelop those through an SDP or an SDPA, that's when we would come in and install the buffer along here where -- I don't know if you've driven into that apartment complex. There's really not much of any buffer there. So I'm assuming they were perfectly comfortable with no buffer at the time they purchased it and -- but, again, we'll put them in a buffer. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you'll add it to the middle section, the middle section? MR. YOVANOVICH: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So they'll have a fence, continuous fence and wall, and then a buffer added in the middle section? MR. YOVANOVICH: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Go ahead, Robb. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I remembered. Okay. So regarding, you know, trying to get to a -- I guess, an agreement, the sticking point -- I think what I'm hearing is the bottom line is if you're going to increase the number of beds, they're going to object no matter what; is that kind of the sum of it? MR. YOVANOVICH: I got -- I got -- at the end of the day, they have not said they're going to withdraw their objections. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But do you think that's the sticking point? MR. YOVANOVICH: That they're not withdrawing their objection? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, no, that it's the additional beds. Is that -- if that went away, is it your feeling that that's what the cause of the impasse is? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, yeah. That's an unfair question. All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, in fairness to Steve, Steve's been honest with me, and I've been honest with him. I don't want to put him in a bad place. I mean, he told you in his letter his client's not ready to say yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I can ask him that question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe we'll get to yes between now and the Board of County Commissioners, but I don't know. I don't know, in fairness to him. COMMISSIONER FRY: And, Rich, I think when you said an SDP on Tract B, you meant for -- if you added an office building or something like that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Any additions. COMMISSIONER FRY: Any additions at all? MR. YOVANOVICH: Pretty much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. So are you ready for Mr. Brooder to come up? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Do you want to explain, Steve? MR. BROODER: Good morning. Yes, what we talked about is through the renovation 5.A.f Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 14 of 48 that was completed a little over a year ago, we added square footage to the facility. So now as we're reconfigured, we can better utilize the space to accommodate the additional beds. And we went from 15,739 square feet of usable space to 17,671 square feet. So with the additional square footage and the better utilization of space, we feel that we can comfortably and reasonably accommodate the folks with the increased beds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may follow up on that. Will there be a decrease in the number of square feet per resident and, if so, how much? MR. BROODER: Yes. For the calculation, we're requesting the deviation to go from 150 square feet per bed to 100 square feet per bed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. There had been -- there had been some comment made at the last hearing that if you increase density among people of all kinds but perhaps particularly among people who are stressed -- under significant stress, it could potentially result in undesirable activity. What's your position on that? MR. BROODER: Well, with the intensive case management we have in place and adding some case managers with the increased beds, we feel we can supervise the folks that are there and, with the additional square footage, be able to accommodate them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. BROODER: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else wish to be heard up here? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to add one more point that the Chairman reminded me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't just pull the number 46 out of the air. For basically the 11 years that Mr. Trachtenberg has been on the board, that's been the consistent number of the people on the waiting list, 46 people, give or take, you know, one or two either way. So this is a thought-out number that we're requesting. Will it solve the entire homeless problem, no, but it will help. And we can only do a little bit at a time. And if we continue to say we love the mission but it's the wrong location, you'll never find the right location and you'll never meet the mission, and we hope that you will recommend approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. In view of the fact that references have been made to opposing counsel, or counsel for the neighborhood or the owner of the apartment with respect to several issues, I'm going to ask Mr. Pires to return to the dais, return to the podium, please, and address these concerns. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. With regards to -- and, generally, it is my understanding that attorneys are not fact witnesses. They argue the case on behalf of their client, but, apparently, Rich is trying to take on a role of being a fact witness today with regards to the rents. The letter that I sent on November 22nd, based upon the information on the website, didn't -- Rich said that they showed rents were 1,151 for a one-bedroom to 1,375 for three-bedroom, but it said "plus." So it was opportunity for increases. And you may be aware of the fact that a lot of apartment complexes are increasing their rental rates. Additionally, at the time of acquisition, there were 104 beds. There was not a proposed 40, 45 percent increase in the number of beds at this shelter. So when our clients acquired the property, did their due diligence, a couple important zoning considerations were in place: There were 104 beds, not proposed 150; the middle piece, the DeVoe PUD, is primarily C-2 uses with some other uses. The proposal is to make it all C-4. So you have that whole C-3, C-4 on top of the C-2. Now, one of the concessions Rich would argue is that the maximum height of 75 is coming down to 50 and 60. That would be an adjustment of this PUD. But to say that our client is frozen 5.A.f Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 15 of 48 in time as to what he bought, that he can't come in and participate in a public process, is appalling to me. Rich used the term "appalling." This Planning Commission and the County Commission always encourages expression of support or opposition, objections from individuals. And that, quite frankly, was a chilling effort on the part, and I think that is inappropriate in this context. With regards to some of the uses, just briefly, Rich said that we opposed legal counsel and prosecution and legal defense. Those are in there as accessory on Tract B, so those are allowed. So I'm not sure where it came from that those will be prohibited. If you look at the proposed PUD on permitted principal use on Tract B, it would be legal counsel and prosecution on that particular -- that's the version I have that was sent to the staff, I think, on December 6th or 9th. But those are just a few of the comments. I think that we're sort of going from two -- you know, a continued hearing may get lost in the translation. But I think what's also lost is the intensification of use in the C-4. No, they were going to argue and assert that they're capping at 130,000 square feet versus the 64,000 that exists today, but the range of uses is much greater. And, again -- so at the time of acquisition, the middle piece was C-2 plus some additional uses. There are 104 beds now. They're going up by 46. That's, again, 40-some-odd percent. And on the rental rates, my letter indicated it was plus, so it could be higher. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Just for clarification, I think what I understood, and maybe my fellow commissioners can confirm. I thought, Mr. Yovanovich, we had a discussion about that line about the lawyers. Whatever the line is; I'm not looking at it. And the discussion was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Take it out. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- that they had limited it and took out two uses, and that's what I thought I heard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And just to clarify, I believe these were my concerns, not counsel for the neighbors. So that was in response to my concerns. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Tony, you mentioned C-2, C-3 uses on Tract B, right? MR. PIRES: Before it was -- well, the middle piece, the DeVoe piece. COMMISSIONER FRY: The uses in place or the permitted uses? MR. PIRES: The permitted use in the DeVoe, which is the middle piece, which will now become part of Tract B, were C-2 plus a few other uses; about, I think, 10 other commercial type uses. But they -- that's what was allowed as permitted uses. Now, a confusion is the master plan says C-3. The text says C-2 in the DeVoe PUD, if -- my recollection. And I think Wayne agrees. And so now that's going to become C-4, all of -- which now the DeVoe goes from C-2 plus some additional uses to C-4 uses. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's your client's position that they may be harmed, detrimentally affected, by the uses that would now be permitted on Tract B as well as the additional 46 residents of the homeless shelter, correct? MR. PIRES: As proposed, we believe that's not compatible or complementary to our client's multifamily residential use, and that's why we were asking for all these various matters to make it compatible and complementary to. COMMISSIONER FRY: What's acceptable to you in terms of uses on Tract B, the C-2 and C-3? What was there before? What was previously there? MR. PIRES: Well, we had -- I think we had a sense -- and, Steve, correct me if I'm wrong. We had an agreement with regards to on Tract B all C-4 general commercial permitted, and legal counsel and prosecution, used vehicle sales, and boat dealers as permitted uses. That was part of our discussion, but it was -- COMMISSIONER FRY: You are okay with that? MR. PIRES: Well, it was part of a big package. It's not just in isolation, because it's a whole of the various aspects we were asking for as far as an agreement. But those were, again, 5.A.f Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 16 of 48 based upon all the other factors, the buffering and the fencing and other matters, would address the compatibility issue, and my understanding is not all of those have been agreed to. COMMISSIONER FRY: You came very close to an agreement, as we understand. MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I guess for all of our benefit, just clarify exactly where the disagreement remains. They have definitely made some concessions but obviously not enough for your client. So exactly where are the main sticking points, in your opinion? MR. PIRES: Steve, do you want to -- the reason I call Mr. -- Steve Tilbrook has had more direct communications with the clients, so he can possibly articulate better. MR. TILBROOK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. TILBROOK: My name is Steve Tilbrook. I'm an attorney with Ackerman Law Firm. And I apologize. I was talking to Rich when the question was presented. Could you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER FRY: It really is you -- from our understanding, you got very close to an agreement, so much so that Rich transmitted a document thinking it was agreed, and then it was not agreed. MR. TILBROOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just be very specific, clarify exactly where the remaining disagreements are that make what has been proposed -- with the concessions they have made, what is still lacking and unacceptable to your client? MR. TILBROOK: Well, I think we can put on the screen -- and, here, I've got a larger copy. It's the same one it's just a little larger; easier to read. Most of the items that we -- that have been addressed by Rich are in his document in an agreement. I can see it. MR. PIRES: If I may, I have extra copies I can hand out to everyone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you wish. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is this document? MR. TILBROOK: This is simply a bullet list of items, most of which have already been included in the revised ordinance that Mr. Yovanovich submitted. And there's a few items at the bottom that are not in that but could be. So let me just go through it. And I don't think I need to go through everything, because there's basically three categories. One is buffering and landscaping, one is use restrictions, and one is commitment to collaboration on vagrancy. As to the -- in terms of priority for our client, the buffering and landscaping are a high priority, and the commitment to collaboration are right up there as well. I'm going to scoot this on the screen. Scoot it down a little bit so we could first go through -- there we go. Right there. So -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Have they not met your -- I guess as you go through these, tell us where they have not met your requirements. My understanding from the discussion of buffering and security that they have actually complied with all of these requests. MR. TILBROOK: Well, I think there's a little bit of confusion. We have agreed, okay. We were in agreement as of yesterday as to these items. Not all of these items were presented today, okay, as part of his proffer in terms of things he would accept, particularly for the buffering and security measures. And I'll just point out the ones he didn't mention today. I don't think they're a big deal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, Mr. Yovanovich. You'll have your opportunity. If you want to make a record, you can come to the podium and make a record; otherwise, wait your turn, please. MR. TILBROOK: I am trying to be respectful of our conversations, okay. I am trying to be respectful. I'd rather not say what we didn't agree to. I would rather say what's important to us, okay, if I could characterize it that way, because that is relevant, and it's not, I don't think, disclosing any confidences about what happened. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 17 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ordinarily, settlement discussions are not admissible. This is not a judicial. It's a quasi-judicial proceeding. I want to be liberal in receiving as much evidence that could potentially be relevant under our more relaxed rules. But I would ask that you try to avoid disclosing settlement discussions that could influence or prejudice either side's case. MR. TILBROOK: Thank you. I'll try to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think there's somebody ahead of me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There is, but did you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, Paul. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I was just going to ask, is both Tract A and Tract B in an activity center? MR. PIRES: Yes, Activity Center 17. MR. TILBROOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what is the county's position on activity center? Don't we normally go to C-4? MR. BOSI: Activity centers are the most intense areas designated by the Growth Management Plan. C-5 is a use that it's normally allowed to. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I guess I don't see the argument that it's -- it was C-2. It was inevitable that the county planned to have it move towards the C-5 level, right? MR. BOSI: That's what's allocated by the Growth Management Plan in terms of the land-use arrangements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commercial Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And was that something that the public would have -- you know, was public knowledge or was part of the public record if someone was doing due diligence when they bought the property? MR. BOSI: It has been designated since the '89 adoption of the GMP. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then my question, if I could -- and I don't know if everyone agrees, but I think as commissioners we were more interested in knowing, if you're going to show us this list, just talk about the things that haven't been accommodated. MR. TILBROOK: I can do that. I can do that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And I don't want to speak for everybody else, but I think that would be most helpful. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's what I'm asking. MR. TILBROOK: Okay. That's where I was getting to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me just query the county attorney. Are we going down the wrong rabbit hole here? MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, we're down so many rabbit holes on this one, I lost count. I'd rather have all these issues raised and discussed and possibly resolved at this level than at the Board level -- MR. TILBROOK: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: -- is how I feel. So whatever you guys want to ask, whatever you guys want to do, I'm almost always okay with it, because the Board's time is very limited. You guys are the land use. The Board not only does the land use, but they're doing everything else, and we were here till almost 8:00 p.m. the other day. It's just -- I know this is a hard process at times, but it's a good process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just -- Steve, I ask your indulgence on this. Going through his list of where we disagree, I just want to know, as he's saying that, if we meet everything he now says, are they withdrawing their objection? That's where he and I thought we were at an agreement, but that didn't happen. So I don't think it's fair to say here's what we disagree on when he's -- I don't think he's in a position to commit that if we agree to that they're going to withdraw 5.A.f Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 18 of 48 their objection. That's what I just want -- I think in fairness to us -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask a question. MR. TILBROOK: I think what I can do is tell you what's important to us. You know, that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you do that, do you have any additional authority from your client to reach an agreement? MR. TILBROOK: I have some additional authority from the client to reach an agreement today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would it be productive for us to take an early break to see if we can't get this resolved? MR. TILBROOK: We spoke earlier before the meeting, and I didn't get an indication from the other side that this -- that it would be productive. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me rephrase that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a very specific question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I have a very specific question. And I forget your name, sir. MR. TILBROOK: Stephen Tilbrook. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Tilber? MR. TILBROOK: Tilbrook. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Tilbrook, if you were to go through this list and then Mr. Yovanovich would say, my client would agree to everything, would you be then able to say we're withdrawing our objection? MR. TILBROOK: If I could clarify the list in the meeting, I think that we can, but there's some clarification that's a little -- that's required, and I can be specific about that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then I guess, you know, what the Chairman has asked is, would it be productive to have a meeting [sic] so that you can figure that out so we can take action, then, once you're done? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would it be quicker, more efficient for you to meet privately and come back to us or to spend no more than, say, about 20 minutes of today remaining trying to get this done publicly? Either way, I think it's to the county's benefit if we can reach an agreement so it didn't -- so that it can proceed to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. TILBROOK: I think we can -- we can answer the questions in 20 minutes, and we can tell you what our client -- their concerns are and where they would be able to go in terms of withdrawing their objection. And I did say it to Mr. Yovanovich earlier, so it's not a secret. There's no secrets. We've communicated. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, at the risk of harming the relationship we've established, I did not understand that this was the final list of demands to get to yes. If this is the final list of demands to get to yes, then it will be productive. But if it's another list where I say yes and his client still reserves the right, it won't be productive. So that -- I just need to know -- and what I would ask, out of respect for my other client who's here for their hearing, perhaps we should table this. I trust Wayne and Steve to go out and talk to Steve and Tony. We can move on with the other item, get that heard, and then come back and see if we were able to reach an agreement, because I don't think it's fair for my other client to sit here for 20 minutes in silence and hope that, you know, we come back. So I would -- I would hope that we could do that to be fair to my other client, that we can have that hearing, and if there's fruitful conversations in the break, they'll come back and say we got it and, if not, we'll finish -- we'll finish where we left off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's been requested, then, or suggested that we could table or continue this to another date certain with the earnest hope that it could be worked out in a way that would garner the support of the counsel, both counsel, and could -- 5.A.f Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 19 of 48 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I thought it was later today. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: After this next item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, you want to table it till later today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Hear my next item, and Wayne and Steve will go out with Steve and Tony and go over the list, and if that's truly the list of -- the final list of demands, maybe we can agree. Maybe we can't. I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I'm amenable to that. Does anybody object to it? Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess I'd like to make a point. I'm just -- did you prepare this list that we -- that was handed out? MR. TILBROOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So I understand that maybe, you know, you want to say, well, "what this means is," but beyond that, you prepared the list, and so I'm just trying to figure out, is there really much more to it? MR. TILBROOK: Not much more to it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, great. It sounds like this break would be very beneficial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then we will table this until after we -- well, we'll table it until we hear a report back from the client with respect to the potential for an agreement. In the meantime, we'll go to the Cruz matter, and then, as time permits after the break, of course, we will take up the staff-initiated matters. So without objection, this matter stands tabled. Please keep us informed. MR. TILBROOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. And it's now 10:13. We'll stand in recess until 10:30, please. (A brief recess was had from 10:13 a.m. to 10:29 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Let's return to our session. ***And we have a matter that's tabled, and we are going, then, to the Cruz Road PUDZ. It is PL20210000101. And all those wishing to testify on 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. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just a housekeeping matter. Is the item that we have in the agenda packet the most up-to-date and accurate version? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll find out when we get to the -- you can ask that as a first question after we make our ex parte disclosures. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you don't mind. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, public record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, meetings with staff, public record. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Vanasse. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just staff discussions and staff material. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Did you want to lead off with your question before -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Yeah, I just -- to avoid the last time, are the 5.A.f Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 20 of 48 documents that we have, you know, the ones that we're going to be seeing from petitioner and -- or is there an updated version? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Unlike the other item, which was continued and there was multiple submittals, this is the most current version, and we're confident that what's in your packet is what's going to be presented by the applicant. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich, go ahead, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, great. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant, which is Toll Brothers. I have Chris Adams from Toll Brothers here, if you have any questions for him; Patrick Vanasse is our land planner from RWA; Joel Blikstad is the engineer from RWA; Ted Treesh is our transportation consultant; and Stephanie Healy is our ecologist. I'm going to do, like I normally do, an overview of the project, and if you have any specific questions for our consultants, I will -- obviously you can ask those questions. The property is 9.96 acres. It is located on County Barn Road. And, as you can see to our immediate north, is the county's transportation fleet management facility, and to the south -- right? I don't know what happened to the -- right here. I give up. That's also the county's property. So it was originally acquired for drainage purposes by the county. Our request is to rezone the property from Estates to a residential PUD with a maximum of 60 dwelling units, which is a density of 6.02 dwelling units per acre. We will be either constructing townhomes or multifamily dwelling units, we will have an amenities area tract which is designated on the master plan before you, and we will have a preserve tract on the property as well. The -- you can see where it says AA. That's our amenities tract, and that's related to one of our deviations regarding parking for the amenity tract to allow parking in the right-of-way kind of where you see the number 2. It's -- we're going to put some parking there for the amenity tract. The preserve exceeds the required preserve, because we're also required to provide some floodplain management regarding this project to accommodate other people's water besides ours. So our preserve area is greater in size than is required under the Comprehensive Plan and LDC. The development standards are on this table, which you've seen these similar type standards before for multifamily as well as for a townhome project. Our zoned height is 30 feet. Our actual height is 40 feet. That's consistent with Estates zoning near by. There are three proposed deviations. One is to reduce the private street right-of-way from 60 feet to 55 feet. You've seen this type of deviation on several projects even going as low as 50 or 40 feet for private roadways. This will work and will provide for the necessary utilities within the project as well. The second deviation is to allow -- and I already hit this one -- to allow some on-street parking in front of the amenity center. And also, the last deviation, which you've seen in other projects, is we have a sidewalk on the side of the street that there's actually a residence instead of putting a sidewalk on a portion of property that nobody's going to really utilize the property. This density-wise is a little bit different. We're considered residential infill. You've seen these projects before. Because we're under 20 acres, as part of residential infill, you can ask for up to three units per acre. The first unit of the three has to be a TDR so, as you know, I think we're required to buy seven -- seven TDRs as part of this project to get to the 6.02 units per acre. We had a neighborhood information meeting for the proposed project, and I think that it's a fair summary that there was concern about drainage, and I think -- hopefully, we answered those questions appropriately. And they were from mainly the residents of this Woodmere project. I'm not sure they understood that we weren't developing the property immediately adjacent to them, and I think at the NIM we clarified that we are one parcel away. So with that, that's an overview of our proposed project. If you have any specific questions regarding -- oh, I have to clarify one thing. When we did our original traffic study, we 5.A.f Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 21 of 48 still had single-family as an allowed use. So the max -- the peak trip number, the trip cap, was higher. We need to reduce that in the PUD to 37 peak-hour trips. I think your staff report reflected that, but we need to take care of that in the document. And with that, that's the overview of the proposed project, and we're happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That very thing was going to be my one and only question, so I'm glad I don't have to ask it. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Could you indulge me a little bit and explain how the TDR process works here for this particular situation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Under the infill, you start with the base of four, and then you can go up to seven. So for each three units that you can go to the seven to get to -- we're asking for 60 units. We're not asking for the full 70. So each time we increase three units, one of those has to be through the acquisition of a TDR, which is a Transfer of Development Rights from the sending lands. The county, when we adopted the Comprehensive Plan for the TDR program, were looking for opportunities for people to buy TDRs, and the residential infill became one of those opportunities, so there would be additional market for people who had their development rights taken away. So we will buy a unit for each -- so we're going to go 20 units, so we're going to buy seven. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the math. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions? Comments? Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Did you -- are you able to put the deviations on the master plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: List them. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's right. And I forgot to tell Patrick this. We will -- and Commissioner Homiak pointed that out. Most of the time, maybe every time, on the master plan, we not only -- we don't refer just to the number. We actually write out the deviations on the master plan, so we will add that to the master plan so you don't have to go back to the document to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's easier, plus they're after that when you're reading through. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It's much simpler when it's right there instead of having to go back to the document, and we will add that to the master plan. Thank you for reminding me of that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, there's an opposition letter in our packet. It's from William Jones. In Item No. 8 he says, we have a parcel about the same size as this one near by with the same zoning. We can build a total of two residences, which I believe is Estates, one per two-and-a-quarter acres. Going from two to 60 seems out of reason. So just clarify the justification for going from the Estates one per 2.25 up to 7. You started at 4 and then you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. This property is within the urban area of Collier County, so it was always anticipated that there would be changes to the existing zoning. Some of it was ag. Some of it was Estates, as you know. And there would be a rezone to implement the new Comprehensive Plan. So that's what we're going through right now is to go through the process of rezoning it. If you -- I think -- I think I can -- I don't. We were going to have -- there we go. If you go -- if you drive up and down County Barn Road, you will see that the projects that front County Barn Road have been rezoned primarily from ag to multifamily projects or the county's fleet management. So on this side of County Barn Road, there are several multifamily projects, and this is consistent with those projects as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: The properties below you that you're not developing, the two 5.A.f Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 22 of 48 parcels, looks like a front lot and then like a flag -- a flag lot behind it, what -- how can they be developed assuming approval of yours? Exact same opportunity for them as for you to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The "them" in this case is Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And so I believe they would -- they had acquired this for drainage improvements, so there is a process. The county may have to go back to the original person that it was taken from to get consent to develop it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that both parcels to the south of you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, both of those are the county's. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So just to clarify, the 46 trips, peak p.m. trips, goes down to 37, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. If that's all we have from the applicant at this time, we'll ask for staff for its report, please. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. Staff has reviewed the petition. We find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan, that there's capacity and concurrency within the surrounding area for all the infrastructure impacts being proposed with the proposed amendment. It is compliant with the infill provision in which we are requiring the first of the three units that are eligible to be requested to be associated with the TDR, and that's -- that's a left -- that's a remnants of the original RFMUD program to help spur on the demand for TDRs to make those individual property owners in the sending land whole creating a market for those TDRs to be purchased. And we find it consistent with the land-use pattern that currently exists within the area, as the applicant has stated. It's an eclectic mix of Estates zoning, RMF-6, multifamily residential, and conditional uses within the area. Based upon all of those consistencies, staff is recommending approval, and we do recognize the inconsistency within the PUD of the 47 trips and -- and -- or 48 trips down to 37, and we would concur with that change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question. Maybe you can explain a little. It looks like more than half of the property is considered primary wetlands. I don't quite understand how that -- in the floodplain mitigation part, how they work on this property. It just seems like there's a lot of the land that isn't in a good area for development. MR. BOSI: There is a process for wetland mitigation, but the way that we've arranged the preserves in the location of where the development is going to be located, concentrated to the front part of the parcel, we found that it is consistent, more than meets the preserve requirements, and there is a mitigation process that is associated with any of the impacted wetlands that would be associated with it. So we do find it consistent with our environmental policies. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the primary -- to me, primary wetlands is a pretty important piece of land. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Indeed, it is. Let's hear from Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Good morning. Jaime Cook, your director of development review. So with this application, they are going to have to go through South Florida Water Management District for an ERP and, as Mr. Bosi said, to mitigate for the loss of wetlands in the habitat. So the primary -- the wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of DEP and the South Florida 5.A.f Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 23 of 48 Water Management District. So they have the final say in how much can be impacted as well as the mitigation expense to the applicant. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm going to ask you another question while you're here. I'm just trying to understand, when they go through the environmental sensitive species analysis, just about every one of them are there, and the comment is always left -- conversations with the Florida Wildlife group. What does that -- that means that we're approving something in hopes that they'll have conversations with the Florida Wildlife? MS. COOK: So there is a Florida Statute that we were not allowed to hold up zoning petitions for outside agency permits. When they come back in for their Site Development Plan, before they can begin any kind of clearing or any kind of construction on the property, they will actually have to have those permits or authorizations to impact from the agencies in place, and they will have to give us copies of those permits. So this gives -- they can go through their zoning action, and then this gives them time to work with the agencies, that if the agencies believe there are impacts to listed species, the agency has time to do their full review before they can actually start construction. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But we won't see any of that? We have to approve that assuming that's going to take place and be managed by the regulatory agencies involved in the permitting? MS. COOK: Yes. And our staff does look at that during the review of the SDP or the plat, and it's required to be submitted to us before our preconstruction meeting. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do we have the authority -- if we don't like what the permitting agency has agreed to, we don't think it's stringent enough, do we have our own rules that can add additional constraints? MS. COOK: We do not because we are not the authority on listed species or wetlands. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, the only reason I ask is that I've been here a year and a half, and I've never seen so many listed species on a piece of property with half of it floodplain. It just seems like it's a very environmentally sensitive piece of property. And I'm sure probably all around them it's the same thing -- MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- but that's why I ask all the questions. MS. COOK: Happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry has a question for you, Ms. Cook. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jaime, I think those are very relevant questions. So just give us an idea, so when they go through the mitigation process, they're eliminating some primary wetlands or, obviously, keeping a reasonable amount of preserve. Will they pay money? Will they preserve land elsewhere in the county? What's a typical outcome from a mitigation proceeding? MS. COOK: It could be one or both of those things. They could be paying money or they could be buying credits to a mitigation bank for an area that's already being preserved. COMMISSIONER FRY: The idea being that they did not harm one area without offsetting that harm either through money that's used for offsetting that harm or preserving land -- MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- correct? Okay. The other question has to do with the endangered species, as Commissioner Shea mentioned. Been a lot of articles lately about the gopher tortoise and how they are -- basically, they come through in some of our applications, and we're asked to just approve it based on the fact they're going to be relocated, and now they're talking about the challenges and the expense of relocating, and there are fewer and fewer areas where they're relocated. What is the fate of the endangered species that go through the DEP permitting process in that all these habitats are going to be wiped out, part of them, on part of -- a lot of this property by the development? So what is the -- what is the offset that is reached by the DEP for those permits? 5.A.f Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 24 of 48 MS. COOK: Well, specifically for the listed species, it's going to go through Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. They will issue a permit to relocate or if -- let me back up. So prior to them clearing, if they found gopher tortoises on the property, they will have to go out and do an additional assessment before they can clear. Florida Fish and Wildlife will have staff come out, evaluate the site as well, and then they will issue them a permit to relocate any gopher tortoises that are found on site. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't remember -- were there gopher tortoises on this site? I don't believe so. It was a wetland. MS. COOK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm talking about the ones that are on this site and, as Paul mentioned, there are a number of them that are -- that would be impacted. So what is their fate? What is their fate? MS. COOK: It's going to be a similar process. You know, for listed bird species, they're going to move anyway. They're transient animals, so they're going to be moving anyway. They may not permanently be residing on this property. They may just have been flying over the site or landed on a tree during the listed species survey itself. But they will have to do additional surveys. They will have to work with the agencies on what exactly that mitigation is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: With respect to the native preserve requirements, I think Rich had mentioned that he's doing above and beyond. And normally South Florida would want to have an area -- conservation area in a preserve. And sometimes the county also will want a conservation easement over that same area. That will be the case here? MS. COOK: Correct, yes. So our Land Development Code requires a specific percentage of the native vegetation on site to be retained. That can be overlapped with a district permit; however, our requirements are slightly different than theirs. For example, the Water Management District allows 5 percent of the exotic coverage to remain in one of their preserves. Collier County Land Development Code says must be 100 percent exotic free. So they'll be required to follow the more stringent rules even if there are overlying easements, conservation easements for the same part of the project. MR. EASTMAN: And in designating the conservation areas, you, and along with South Florida, try to pick the most important wetlands. Those are the ones that you want to preserve? MS. COOK: Correct. So our Land Development Code has a -- basically a criteria listing of how to pick your preserve area, and wetland habitats rank higher than upland habitats. So, ideally, we would like them to keep the wetlands, and then we also like them to try to maintain their preserve in an area that may be contiguous to other preserves that are in the area. So if one of the neighboring parcels has a preserve, we'd like them to ideally try to connect to that so that there's better movement for wildlife. MR. EASTMAN: Interesting. And I'm glad you bring up that point with contiguous preserves to adjoining property. And then, do you discourage fences in those situations where you've got preserve to preserve? MS. COOK: Ideally, we don't want them to do it, but our Land Development Code does not prohibit it. MR. EASTMAN: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions on environmental? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a statement, Jaime, that you find the environmental outcome and impacts from this project acceptable? MS. COOK: Yes, sir. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 25 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further from staff? Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: None further, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we have any public comment, Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker with us today, Eric Gross. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Gross, please approach the podium. Identify yourself, and let us hear from you. MR. GROSS: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Eric Gross, and I live on Charlemagne Boulevard, which is not too far away from the site that you're looking at for development. What I see -- because directly behind my yard, my backyard, is woods, all of it is wooded. And there is a tremendous amount of wildlife in those woods. I have bird feeders up. I also feed the raccoons. I know what I see, because we also have a canal running in my backyard that runs all the way across the backyards of all the houses. And in those canals, amazing bird life, amazing life -- I mean, creatures that I've never seen before are there. And what's happening is is that as we take out all these parcels of wooded property, the animals have nowhere to go. So where they're going is, they're coming to my house. They're coming to all the houses that have access from, like, a canal or from other wooded parcels, and they're trying to live there. You reach a saturation point where they're digging up your backyard. There's fights. The coyotes, there's, like, 70 or 80 coyotes that are living in the property directly behind me. The howling every night is amazing. I enjoy it; a lot of people are afraid. But County Barn is under assault. Every place that -- as you drive down County Barn, every area is being developed. A lot of it hasn't even begun to be developed, but you see the "for sale" signs up and, yet, they've already dredged the roads through, but there's no development. So I don't know if the projects are at a standstill. I'm not sure what's going on. But County Barn on the side of this project is being under assault. So for them to say, the owners here and the developers, that they're going to put in a 60-acre apartment -- a 60-lot apartment complex and nothing is going to be disturbed, and the animals are going to be provided for by the laws and the mitigating factors that keep the animals happy is not going to happen. What's going to happen is that the animals are going to flee, because the trucks and the amount of building equipment that comes in and makes horrendous noise -- I mean, it's offensive to me; it's offensive to all homeowners -- goes on for six to eight months, maybe even a year that we have to put up with this noise. The animals will not tolerate it. They will leave, and they have no place to go. So the only thing I can say to you in leaving with this -- with this idea is that it's a huge deal to wipe out these woods. It's a huge deal. Because you're not just doing this parcel. Drive down County Barn. The whole side of the street is being stripped of the woods which is vital to the animal life that's in the area. And I just hope that if you have a chance, you do take a drive down County Barn and look at that piece of property. It's only 10 acres. It's not that big. But it's a beautiful piece of wooded property, and that's the kind of thing that must be preserved if we're going to keep the animals within our area, and they're leaving, and I hate to see it happen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Gross, I mean, I personally find it painful also as we see woods and wetlands and things developed over and -- but our role here -- I'm going to ask the county to speak to the inevitable growth we have here. I mean, I think we're kind of at a rock and a hard place here. None of us up here, I think, want to see woods torn down, but we also know people are moving here. And so what the county's trying to do is balance preserving as much as we can but developing where it makes sense. So I'm going to ask the county to kind of give Mr. Gross some context on why this is not a 5.A.f Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 26 of 48 bad -- let's just say we don't want to lose the woods but why the growth is better here and that the outcome from, overall, the success of the county in preserving enough space for wildlife and water and natural lands. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Sorry to put you on the spot, Mike, but... MR. BOSI: -- Planning and Zoning director. This is squarely within the urbanized area. Where Mr. -- where the speaker lives, Charlemagne Boulevard within the Riviera Golf Estates, it's a traditional -- it's a golf subdivision. At one point in time those were woods. They were cleared. A property owner owned that. They had rights associated with it. They developed it. They preserved the county requirements. This property is none different. At the end of the day, all of the properties along County Barn Road will be developed. When they're owned with private ownership, they're allowed to develop with the allowances that are provided by the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. We have open-space requirements. We have preserve requirements. Those will have to be maintained. But at the end of the day, all of those properties that are along County Barn Boulevard [sic] will be urbanized. It is squarely within the urbanized area. It's anticipated by the Growth Management Plan that it will be. There will be -- there is open space and preserve requirements associated with it. But at the end of the day, this is a private piece of property with a bundle of rights. We have assigned zoning with -- we have assigned zoning and an allocation within our Growth Management Plan for how it can be developed. It's complying with that. I understand the attachment to empty wooded lots but, unless you own them, another person own them -- owns that property, has a bundle of rights that's associated with it. The zoning provides for that, and we're here to make sure that they adhere to the regulations and develop as to what is in accordance to the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code would allow for. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just add the corollary to that -- and thank you for that explanation -- that we have -- in the Rural Estates, we have the RLSA, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, where, in effect, we're developing about a quarter of it and preserving three quarters of it, including the most sensitive wetlands and habitats and such. So it's imperfect. I don't think any of us disagree with you, but I think what Mr. Bosi's saying is this is a strategic area that will be developed, and this is according to the plan. MR. KLATZKOW: We have a program, Conservation Collier. Its focus has been more towards the eastern part of the county, but there's no reason why it couldn't be for this part of the county, and if this is something you're passionate about, I would start looking in on their meetings and having discussions with them, because it is a program for Collier County to purchase environmentally sensitive areas. And if you're looking to preserve this, it's really citizen action. Right now there's been very little citizen action on Conservation Collier. And, again, the focus has been eastern Collier County rather than preserving, basically, the incorporated area. MR. GROSS: Can I just add that there's a site that many of you possibly know about called Nextdoor. It's on your -- one of your apps, and you can -- it links you to your neighborhoods and your neighborhood. And on Nextdoor about a month ago, when that sign went up for this project, I brought it up to the neighborhood and to the surrounding neighborhoods by putting it on Nextdoor, and I had 70 people respond to my sign, which I just put up on the screen so they could see what was going on. Seventy people responded. They would like to be here, but they're older. A lot of them can't sit down and wait an hour and a half or two hours to be heard, and they're working; many people work. So just because I'm here standing to you, it's not that others wouldn't like to be here. They would. MR. KLATZKOW: We have the ability for people to call in the meetings, essentially. MR. GROSS: They're working. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 27 of 48 MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I understand. It's an imperfect world. MR. GROSS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Bosi's absolutely right in everything he said. What I'm saying is giving you a potential solution to, you know, what you perceive is a problem, and that would be for the county to start picking up some of these lots. That's not going to happen unless you and other people get involved in the process. MR. GROSS: I appreciate that. I really do. MR. KLATZKOW: So I'm giving you a potential solution. It's -- I don't know what else to say. MR. GROSS: One more thing. Is there anything that could be done, for example, the roadkill that's going on on County Barn? It's only a two-lane road. MR. KLATZKOW: I take that road all the time. I have never seen roadkill. MR. GROSS: Oh. MR. KLATZKOW: It's an odd road, actually, the way it's developing, but -- so, oh, by the way, the fact that you have coyotes says something, because the panthers should normally get rid of the coyotes, but -- MR. GROSS: I've seen a panther once. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to suggest -- thank you, Mr. Gross. MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for speaking to us. Mr. Youngblood, do we have anybody else who's registered? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do not. All right. Anybody in the room who has not registered yet would like to be heard on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no one, we will close the public comment portion of the hearing and ask Mr. Yovanovich if you have a closing or a rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just briefly. You know, you've read the staff report and you've heard the testimony that we are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, and this is where development's supposed to occur, and we request that you make a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't really have -- it would be after he's done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess I just wanted to say that I certainly understand when me or anybody else or our gentleman who just addressed us -- when we see things that are happening, you know, near us, all of a sudden, you know, we pay attention -- we pay attention, and, you know, we raise our voice, and I think that's good. And in this situation, though, you know, we have a system in place, as it was already mentioned. We also have a system in place where we are already by, you know, regulation, we're already trying to make sure that we preserve certain places and have green spaces in areas. This is a designated area, as we've heard, where it's going to be urbanized, period. And you're, apparently, living in an area that was already -- you know, was already developed. And it's very difficult to hear people talk about someone else's land that's near by and as pretty as woods, and not just pretty, you know, they enjoy the wildlife, all of the things that you mentioned, all of those are legitimate things. But someone else owns it, just like someone owns -- you know, owned your land and decided to develop it. And I just -- I can't let that pass and not point out that you're living in an area where that 5.A.f Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 28 of 48 has already happened, and then you're trying to prevent someone else from doing exactly what, you know, someone did so that you can live the way that you want to live. And I am just mentioning it because I just can't let that go unaddressed because -- and I think I'm going to start making a point every time that we have -- we have -- I'm impressed that we go out of our way to make sure that we're addressing environmental issues in this county. And so to that end, I just make that point. And I appreciate very much that people come to the meetings. I've been on the other side as the citizen who comes to address the people that are making decisions, and I very much appreciate hearing the point of view. But I'm -- obviously, I'm responding to what I heard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question for Rich. There's no affordable housing in this at all. Is that something that's a possibility? Or how did you deal with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we are within the Growth Management Plan. Most of the times where you guys get me is when I'm doing a Growth Management Plan amendment to increase density. This is not a request to change the Growth Management Plan. We're utilizing the -- and I don't mean "get me," you know, just -- that's usually when there's also a request for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, you might have said that, you know, there's more supply, which will help with the problem, more supply of housing, period. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there will be, but, you know, I don't want to misrepresent that it's going to fall within the price points that -- MR. EASTMAN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I was being asked about, but -- so, you know, as you know, there is more supply for -- I'll call it workforce housing that's coming forward, and there will be more, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further? No one else is signaling at this time. And you don't have anything further to say? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just waiting for the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And a motion would be in order at this time. Anyone care to make it? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll move that we adopt the petition as presented by the petitioner with whatever -- if they made any changes while speaking with those changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Reduction in peak p.m. to 37, I believe. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: As long as the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to add the notes on the master plan, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, further discussion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We didn't talk about the deviations at all. Probably a question for Mike. It seems like every time -- the one thing we always eliminate is the two-sided sidewalks. Should we -- what is the -- what was the logic of having that on both sides, and what is the logic of constantly deleting that from almost everybody's application? MR. BOSI: We support the -- we support the elimination of sidewalks on both sides when there is an absence of residential units in the area that is being proposed for the deviation. That's the only -- that tends to be the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if there's development on both sides, you want a sidewalk both sides? 5.A.f Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 29 of 48 MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And that's a policy. Okay. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the application as presented with the change on the peak p.m. trips to 37, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. That's 5-nothing. Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to go check and see if they made any progress. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll be right back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Just a comment for the Planning Commission. Based upon the discussion that we just had related to the environmental sensitivity and the preservation related to wildlife and wetlands, just a reminder, 70 percent of Collier County is placed either in state or federal preserve. We spend all of the time within this dais trying to make the determination of the best way to evaluate land use for the 30 percent remaining. And we do have a robust open-space and preserve requirement contained within our Land Development Code and our Growth Management Plan. It's not replicated. It's not the equivalent of an undeveloped piece of property, but we do have provisions that provide for allocations of open space and preserve areas. And it is -- and I understand, there's difficulty when people associate that undeveloped property as preserve land, their wildlife areas. But, eventually, the property owner finds that it's -- there's a higher and better use for it. But just wanted to provide, you know, that context, that, you know, 70 percent of our land will never be developed because of the classification. And we -- and I think the county, and the Planning Commission supports that we do a robust job of making sure that the residential developments that do come out will have that open-space requirement and that feel that is the Collier County and why so many people find it so attractive to be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just another educational question for me. You say 70 percent of the county. You don't -- do you include a golf course acreage in that -- does that land get committed to being -- usually in a PUD they could probably eliminate the golf course and put something else there, so it's not considered in conservation? MR. BOSI: No, the golf courses would never have a conservation easement upon it. When I say 70 percent, that's 70 percent of the land area that's dedicated within state or federal preserves. That doesn't include the open spaces that's associated with individual developments. When it comes down to it, at the end of the day when the county reaches towards buildout, it will be 20 percent to 80 percent development to open space. When you include the required water management areas, the open-space areas, we have a very demanding percentage for both open-space and preserve areas, but that number that I quoted is only federally and state-protected land outside of what's set aside within the individual developments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And on that point, I think that, as well, that the private initiatives for the privately held 5.A.f Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 30 of 48 conservation areas is not included in that 70 percent federal and state? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So in addition to the 70 percent, we have -- what is the name of the organizations that own -- that hold that land? MR. BOSI: You mean Conservation Collier? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, aren't there some privately control as well? Is Conservation Collier privately controlled? MR. BOSI: It's -- Conservation Collier is a government program, but I do believe that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aren't there some private companies that also -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- are, you know, perpetually preserving land? And so that's in addition to the 70 percent. That's the only point I was making. And so the golf courses is within whatever, the 28 percent or 25 percent. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to make a motion that Mike Bosi never be allowed to leave Collier County again. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we all feel the same way. Should we -- I mean, looking at the clock, it's -- maybe the most efficient thing for us to do would be going into one staff initiated or not? MR. BOSI: I would say -- I would suggest whether it be the scrivener's error or the murals, I think those were rather efficiently put together by our staff, and the issues that are associated with them are rather narrow. I think we can go through those relatively quickly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's do. Let's do it. Without objection from the Planning Commission, let's do it. And let me look at my notes here. ***All right. The first of these two is PL20210002604. It's a staff-initiated Land Development Code amendment to amend scrivener's errors and erroneous or obsolete cross-references. Mr. Bosi, you may proceed. It's legislative in nature. MR. BOSI: And Mr. Sean Kingston will be here to present the item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Kingston, you have the mic. MR. KINGSTON: Hello. I am Sean Kingston, a senior planner of the Land Development Code section in the Planning and Zoning Division. This LDC amendment corrects scrivener's errors and cross-references. It updates cross-references related to various Land Development Code sections including the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, the Florida Statutes, and the Florida Administrative Code chapter and rule citations. The Development Services Advisory Committee reviewed the amendment and unanimously recommended approval on November 3. I am here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone have any questions of Mr. Kingston? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I had spoken with staff with respect to an issue having to do with fire district language, and we agreed informally, subject to Planning Commission's approval, to alter that language slightly in recognition of the unique situation in Goodland. Mr. Bosi, do you want to address that or, Mr. Kingston? MR. KINGSTON: This is related to the Goodland zoning overlay or the fire district or both? 5.A.f Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 31 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's on, I think, Page 317 of staff material 6C. The unique situation is is that the hamlet, if you want to call it that, of Goodland receives fire suppression support from the City of Marco Island Fire Department, which is not a district. MR. KINGSTON: Oh, I understand, I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I just wanted a slight -- MR. KINGSTON: Different jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I had suggested we said fire district or department and Mr. Bosi, I think, had offered language that I was equally satisfied with. What was that? MR. BOSI: And I believe that was Mr. French that offered the specific nomenclature that you were looking for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BOSI: It was the -- not the fire district having authority. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. There is a -- MR. KINGSTON: The fire district -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French has been thrown under the bus, so we're going to ask him to crawl out from under there. MR. FRENCH: Good morning. For the record, Jamie French, your deputy department head for Growth Management Plan. What I might offer is that you just refer to it as the fire authority having jurisdiction so that way it would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm absolutely fine with that because it addresses the Goodland situation. MR. FRENCH: So whether it -- in the event that they're served by Greater Naples or by interlocal agreements, City of Marco, but that still falls under the Greater Naples Fire District for their -- at least plan review and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. FRENCH: -- response. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody not happy with that change? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then any -- no one is signaling at this point. Any further discussion on that. If -- Mr. Kingston or Mr. Bosi, anything more from staff on this? MR. BOSI: And I was just speaking with Mr. Kingston, and recognizing that it's in a number of different areas within the proposed amendments, we'll make that change wherever "the district," and we'll replace that with "authority." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Without objection from the Planning Commission, now would be an appropriate time to entertain a motion on the scrivener's error provisions. I have nothing further on it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to approve with the one revision just reviewed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) 5.A.f Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 32 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously, 5-0. Thank you, Mr. Kingston and Mr. Bosi. ***And, Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to be recognized and give us a status report? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. I think -- I don't know where Tony and Steve are. But, unfortunately, we're down to one item. And I don't know if they want me to disclose what the item is. But, otherwise, if we can't -- we're down to one item that we think is just -- we just can't agree to it and, otherwise, we'll just -- we'll take our chances on your vote based upon what we've presented and agree to the additional changes today. But we're down to one item, and I don't know if I'm allowed to tell what that item is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, Mr. Pires is here. He could signal to you whether -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking. The answer's no, I can't tell them what the one item is? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come to the mic, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: The one item -- MR. TILBROOK: Thank you, Board. And thank you, Rich, for taking the time to speak with us. We did reach out to our client. It was -- there is a concern about impacts to the fencing, the buffering, and the gate system that they believe have occurred over the years associated with vagrancy. I'm not going to say specifically St. Matthew's House, because we don't have evidence of that, and our client has asked for assistance repairing the vehicle gate. That is the issue that we've come down to that we can't reach agreement on. Everything else we have reached agreement on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Klucik. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the ask -- and correct me. It was a number ask, right? It was a monetary ask. MR. TILBROOK: We had an estimate that we talked about this morning, and our client has told us just -- you didn't know this, but -- that he doesn't know that that's an accurate estimate. So there isn't a specific ask in terms of number. It's just to repair it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And our position is, that gate's been broken for many years, and I don't think that gets shifted to us. But that's holding up their withdrawing their objection. So we're -- as I said, we think we've made a lot of concessions to the buffering requirements, hours of operation and delivery, and we would request that you recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm going to refer to the sheet that the neighboring counsel in opposition are objecting. You have that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I've seen it. I know the gate's not on that list. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, because I want to refer to specific language in it. MR. TILBROOK: It's on the screen. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, it's on the screen. So I'm looking at "exclude offender rehabilitation agencies nonresidential." And I think these issues are clear to you, but they're still not clear to me, so I just want clarification. So that means that you could have residential offender rehab agency there? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think. And Steve -- and I'm going to trust Steve, because I have no reason not to. I think he told me that we had already agreed to everything under the additional buffering and security measure category, and the additional-use restriction -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I'm asking for clarification -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- on what the language means. So when I see "exclude offender rehab agencies nonresidential," that means residential would not be excluded? 5.A.f Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 33 of 48 MR. TILBROOK: Offender rehabilitation agency nonresidential, we're going to remove that. MR. YOVANOVICH: You've removed that objection? MR. TILBROOK: Yes. We are agreeing to remove the objection to offender rehabilitation agency nonresidential. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And how about self-help agencies? MR. TILBROOK: That one we would like to keep in. I know we had some discussion about it. So it's our preference to keep that one in. But the term is "agency," and we had a discussion about self-help services versus self-help agency. And the word under the coding that you use references "agency." We do not have an objection to self-help services. I think that's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Because the broader point that I'm going to bring up -- and I'm not sure if this is the -- I mean, it's certainly related to that specific question, and so I'm going to make the broader point. It also would go to 9222 as to the exceptions. I don't think there should be any. And my whole point is, first off, adjacent or extremely close to this apartment complex we have bail bondsmen, we have substance counseling, we have juvenile detention, and WIC services provided by the county. That's all already adjacent to this property. So I don't understand how that's an objection that's in any way valid as far as saying that it's noncompatible or somehow not fair, for lack of a better term, to the apartment complex owner or residents. And what I would also say is we have a private entity, arguably, but generally doing amazing work that the government actually can't do. Because the government can't love people. St. Matthew's House loves people, and they provide services that the government similarly provides. And I'm not saying that the people who work in government settings aren't caring and concerned about the people. But the St. Matthew's House is free to love these people, and they do, and they provide amazing services to people in a much -- in what I would argue, in a much nicer setting and a setting that's better than how the government can provide them. And it's not really a dig against government. It's just a fact about government. And then I would say, this is envisioned and is and has always been thought of as a comprehensive center that provides the kind of services that St. Matthew's House provides. Nothing that's being proposed is not in accord with what everyone expects St. Matthew's House to be providing, especially at a place where there's residential homeless housing. All of these services that -- and that's great, you know. And I'm sorry, I don't mean -- if you're excluding, you know, some of the list, that's great, because that's getting more towards what I'm concerned about. I think we shouldn't approve this with any of the restrictions related to those kind of services being eliminated, because where are you going to allow these wonderful services to be provided in a comprehensive manner where everything that these people need, these clients need, is available? And by saying we can't do this and we can't do that, we don't like this, we don't want, you know, things -- things that are right next door anyways, I think I would -- I think they're going to be in a much -- what I would say it's a more favorable setting within St. Matthew's House. It's actually nicer and better for the neighbors to have those things within St. Matthew's House. So I actually think -- you know, I'm actually kind of -- I'm not offended or appalled, I guess, because like I said previously on the previous matter, I certainly understand neighbors being concerned about changes next door. That's normal. I just am so excited about the work St. Matthew's House does. I hate to think that we're going to hamstring them from providing comprehensive services. So I actually hope that we'll move forward, kind of eliminating some of the restrictions on the kind of services when we have our motion. But I'll -- obviously, I don't want to throw things off so that we don't get to an agreement, but that's my thought. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we're not going to get to an agreement today. So what we're requesting is that you vote up or down what we presented to you today. And we're okay 5.A.f Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 34 of 48 about taking out the district -- I'm sorry -- public defender and prosecutor offices. We're okay with that. I think that's probably the only change that we didn't have in the PUD from what I presented. We're happy to exclude those from the 9222. Did I get the right number of twos? But we're asking you to vote on what I presented on the screen and just remove those two uses and leave in everything else we had. And I think it's time. We just need to know. Enough's enough. We're not going to reach an agreement today. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I want to say that my comments -- and I want to kind of, like, label them as dedicated to one of the board members, Father Orsi, who's a dear friend of mine. Father Michael Orsi from St. Agnes Parish. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: The third paragraph, the third area on the sheet is commitment to collaboration on vagrancy. I did not hear any mention of agreement in that area, but it doesn't seem to still be -- is it no longer a sticking factor? MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, none of these uses today, other than the ones that I already put into the document and presented, we're agreeing to today. If we get to an agreement between now and the Board of County Commissioners -- we are always going to collaborate with our neighbors. We welcome them to call us and say, we have an issue. We will always have those conversations. It doesn't need to be in a PUD. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. I guess the question is for you, Mr. Tilbrook. Do you have evidence that the gate was damaged by people associated with St. Matthew's House? MR. TILBROOK: I do not. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. TILBROOK: On the collaboration, we appreciate the collaboration. We look forward to the collaboration. We felt compelled to put it in the list because we haven't had collaboration, but we look forward to it in the future. Whether or not it deserves to be in an ordinance, I think, for us it's better if it is, but I think we can have collaboration in either way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. I'm sorry. MR. EASTMAN: I was going to ask Karl's question, too, about evidence of the gate. When did this become an issue in this objection? When did you first hear about damage to the vehicular gate? MR. TILBROOK: Our client has expressed to us concerns about the whole security system in general. We were not aware of the specific deficiency at the gate until the last few days. MR. EASTMAN: What -- is it vehicular damage to the gate, or is it -- what type of damage is it to the gate? MR. TILBROOK: I don't know. It's not functional. It's open, and it doesn't close, and it doesn't function. So I don't know specifically what kind of damage. MR. EASTMAN: Most frequently that's damage that's done with a vehicle. So does it seem possible or improbable that a homeless person would drive a vehicle, damage the gate, park it, and then go sleep in the woods on your client's property? MR. TILBROOK: There's a lot of ways a gate can be damaged, and our client is asserting that they would like assistance with the repairs at the gate. That is all I've been asked to communicate, and I wish I could give you more. MR. EASTMAN: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Just -- sir, Mr. Tilbrook? Mr. Tilbrook, I just -- do you understand the larger point I make about the scope and the comprehensive nature of the services that St. Matthew's is trying to provide here? MR. TILBROOK: Yes. We do not dispute the good work that's done by St. Matthew's House. We don't, but this is rezoning. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 35 of 48 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. TILBROOK: We spent a whole hearing -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. MR. TILBROOK: -- putting evidence about impacts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, please let the commissioner speak. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I had a very specific question that you didn't answer, and I'm happy to let you make your other point. Do you understand my concern about the -- what I would say is a necessity to offer comprehensive services? And so that by -- you know, by hindering that -- and I understand your client has been moving in a good direction in discussing it. But do you understand my broader point that the comprehensive nature of what St. Matthew's House does requires them to have a facility in an area like this that offers these services together comprehensively? I'm not asking you to agree that I'm right in this particular issue, but do you understand the idea that there needs to be a place where they can do something like that? It allows them to actually accomplish their mission. MR. TILBROOK: I expect that having a comprehensive character to this facility is helping them benefit their mission. That is obvious, but there are impacts. And we spent an entire hearing articulating and providing evidence of what those impacts are. Whether they're traffic, whether there are other impacts, and whether or not it complies with your criteria for a rezoning. And that's really why we're here. We would like to resolve this, but it's our assertion that it doesn't meet the criteria for a rezoning and that there are impacts that haven't been mitigated. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling at this time. It would be appropriate for a motion to be made, if anyone cares to. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'd be happy to move, as Mr. Yovanovich asked, that we present it -- that we approve it as presented without -- it has nothing to do with this document. It was how Mr. Yovanovich presented it. And I don't know, there was, I think, taking out two items from 9222. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The prosecutors and the defense counsel; is that right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So nothing on this sheet? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Unless it's already been specified in what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Several of those things are already in the document that I presented. For instance, the buffering, and I had committed to the gap in the gate -- I mean in the fence. We had committed to that, so it will be continuous, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just in terms of deliberation -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- I wanted to state for public record, I mean, I think we have an undeniably beneficial mission to the county, as you've underscored, Robb. I get a sense that, you know, you can't quite agree on everything, but I would consider your efforts, Mr. Tilbrook, Mr. Pires, to be successful on behalf of your client in that you have negotiated quite a sizable basket of concessions, and I also commend the applicant team negotiating in good faith. I feel -- I feel you've gone far enough to earn my vote for this. The buffering, I think, is even one where I think you've gone above and beyond in terms of it was there when they bought it; do you really owe them buffering? I'm not so sure that you do; however, I think it's an -- I think it's a positive for the project and also for them, beneficial. So I plan to vote in favor. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 36 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach, did you wish to be heard? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. I just wanted to -- for the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning Division. I just wanted to clarify for the record -- because there were some statements made that the PUD document, PUD ordinance that was included in the CCPC Accel agenda was not the current -- was not the correct one. It was correct. We attached the one that exists a week prior to this hearing, and the changes that were -- that were contemplated today were changes that were emailed yesterday. And, obviously, we can't include those in a document that was published a week ago. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. And I would like to just mention that I think you heard me say that I -- you know, I don't want to say that objection was appalling and that I do think -- you know, I actually think -- you know, I mentioned the concessions, both sides, but certainly that the objector has -- you know, they did, you know, concede on some points. And so I certainly don't want my passion for the St. Matthew's House to be seen as, you know, anything other than that. And I'm glad that -- you know, obviously, they were very close to agreement, and there's sticking points sometimes, and that's just how it is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling at this time, so I'm going to make a final statement about how I'm going to vote and why. I am a regular contributor to St. Matthew's and will continue to be because of the wonderful work they do. It's an essential organization to our county. It's never going to fulfill the full need, no matter how many additional beds it has. One hopes that other organizations will come up to the plate and add resources that the government can't on its own provide. So my hats off to St. Matthew's. It's a wonderful organization, and it's badly needed in our county, and they're doing a terrific job. But I must vote against and I will vote against this for the sole reason of inadequate security provisions. And the other reasons that I put in the record are also of concern, but my most significant one has to do with an inability to add anything to the -- bring anything to the table on additional security. So that's how I'm going to vote, and it's been moved and second. So is there any further discussion? Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would just note that I didn't hear that as a sticking point in the end from the parties, so -- the concern that you just expressed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we can call them back, but I don't think there's -- I think Mr. Yovanovich was pretty clear that there's been no agreement on additional security. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. What I'm saying is is they had come to an agreement, and that hadn't been the reason for the impasse, the reason that you're voting against it. And that's fine. I'm just noting that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Noted. MR. YOVANOVICH: Their concern was would we collaborate with them on how to address people who might be -- who might be camped out. Would we work with them to figure out a solution to that problem. That was -- do I have it right, Steve, that was the concern? MR. TILBROOK: That is an aspect of the security. We also have -- Steve Tilbrook. The issues for security were fencing, and we also had security cameras and monitoring. While we have a general agreement on security cameras and monitoring, that is not part of the conditions that are in your record today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And that's what we have to work with, the record today, and maybe by the time it gets to the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can't you put it in? Can't we put it in? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we could move to amend, sure. I mean, we have a right to 5.A.f Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 37 of 48 do our own resolution, and we could move -- we could move to amend to approve with the addition of security provisions, if that be the wish of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just point out my original -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're not approving it anyway. We're just advising. It's not our approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's true, yeah. You're right. Do you want to make a motion to amend? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do so. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to amend to include -- do you want to include the security cameras? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And the language that I'm looking for is what was in the document that was withdrawn. But, for clarity, Mr. Yovanovich, is there a way that that language can be provided to the court reporter -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me read it to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and to the Planning Commission? Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, within six months install and monitor security cameras for homeless shelter and accessory social service or commercial use adjacent to residential uses. That's the language. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Any further discussion? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if it's getting added. I'm just telling you that's what the language was. COMMISSIONER FRY: Doesn't that negate the need for the amendment? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I don't think so, because that's not on the table. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we're voting on the amendment first, and then we'll vote on the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: The amendment needs to be seconded first. That's what I was trying to say as I'm knocking everything over here. So there's -- it's been -- the amendment has been moved and made clear. Is there a second to it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'll second it. So the amendment has been moved and seconded. The vote is going to be on the amendment, not the main motion. So all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Did I hear three negatives? Okay. So the amendment fails by a vote of 2-3. COMMISSIONER FRY: And, Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I think it's a great concept. It just wasn't one that was specifically brought up by the opposition. And my reason I voted no is I believe it ought to be negotiated or confirmed with -- between the parties before they go to the Board of County Commissioners, just not one that I feel that we should throw in there at the end here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with that also, and the apartment complex could also do that. So why does that concession have to be on the part of the applicant? If they want cameras, they can put them up themselves, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we've had a vote, and the vote was not to include that. So now we come to the main motion. If there are no further amendments forthcoming, 5.A.f Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 38 of 48 it's -- the main motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the main motion, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? Nay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, I'm sorry. Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How are you voting? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So it passes, 3-2. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***All right. Our next matter which maybe we can get in before regular 12:00 noon lunch -- is staff prepared? MR. BOSI: Staff is prepared, and I would say that I don't think it's more than a half an hour discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody object if -- we might go a little past noon; we may not. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Let's do it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's do it, then. Very good. ***So the fourth and final matter today is PL20210002450, and this is an LDC/CA having to do with murals and creating a county public art committee. Again, this is legislative in nature. So no ex parte disclosures are required and no swearing in is required. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And this is an amendment that was brought to us from the Bayshore CRA, and Ms. Laura DeJohn, I believe, has been retained as a consultant for the Bayshore, and she will introduce the item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We recognize you. MS. DeJOHN: Good morning. Thank you. Again, Laura DeJohn. I'm a consultant with Johnson Engineering here today on behalf of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA office. And what you are being asked to consider is a Land Development Code amendment and administrative code amendment that has worked its way through many channels to get to you. I do not have a PowerPoint. I'm just going to briefly highlight what the changes are that are being proposed and the source of these changes. So the summary material for this Land Development Code amendment, the summary that staff prepares, explains that there has been language in the Land Development Code allowing murals in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA area since 2012. So it's already been on the books. Over this period of time, as the CRA continues to grow and develop, the county and the CRA have worked together to make sure standards and procedures for review and implementation of the creation of murals in the redevelopment area is getting refined. So there's been many steps leading up to this point. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area plan was adopted by the Board, as you know, in 2019. The vision for that area emphasizes the cultivation of the area's artistic and cultural identity. The Board of County Commission also adopted a Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Public Art Pilot Plan earlier this year, July 2021. And this plan is basically providing the guidance for the Land Development Code amendment and administrative code amendment that you're considering today. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 39 of 48 So within that Public Art Pilot Plan adopted by the Board, they authorized these amendments to take place. They also endorsed the idea of creating a public art committee, and by board action just earlier this week on Tuesday, the Board did vote and approve to establish a public art committee. So the themes that you're seeing in this refinement of language in the Land Development Code are rooted in those board-authorized and board-endorsed plans, and the goal is to help move this initiative forward with, you know, better parameters and better explanation on the review and procedures associated with creation of murals in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. The amendments go through Growth Management Plan staff review -- or Growth Management Department staff review, so this has been vetted leading up to the point appearing before you. It also went through the Development Services Advisory Committee as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So we're talking about murals on privately owned buildings. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, the criteria we're talking about apply to murals that are in public view from public right-of-way or funded by public dollars. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: In public view. So if I own a building that falls in one of the correct categories, I have to ask a government committee on how to express myself? MS. DeJOHN: So -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. It's a really easy question, because -- it's a yes or no. MS. DeJOHN: Within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So, I mean, are you -- are you legal here? Are you a lawyer, or are you here representing the organization otherwise? MS. DeJOHN: I'm a certified planner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Certified planner. MS. DeJOHN: And I will, you know, reinforce the fact that we're talking about amending language that already exists, so... COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I see all the blue language is new, correct? MS. DeJOHN: Right. So murals being allowed as public art within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area was specifically described as being allowed on commercial, civic, and institutional buildings previously. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, wait. Let me just back you up. So I think what we had is murals were allowed, and there's a committee, a CRA, and the CRA is what? CRA advisory board. That's who currently holds the power, right, to approve or disapprove? MS. DeJOHN: To review, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: To review. For approval or disapproval, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. The CRAAB is recommendatory. MS. DeJOHN: Right. They were the body where a mural formerly would go for review, and that is being -- there was a stay put on that and -- for the refinement of standards and adoption of a plan, and that has now occurred. So now its implementing measures are to refine how that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is to comply with litigation? MS. DeJOHN: No. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So the stay was -- and when you say "stay," I think litigation. But you're saying it was a -- MS. DeJOHN: They were Code Enforcement Board matters. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Here's my point. My point is what we have now -- so the existing -- so what we have now has been stayed because it was seen as not workable or not -- MS. DeJOHN: Well, there were -- you know, there were violations being accrued and, therefore, the -- 5.A.f Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 40 of 48 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: When private actors speak, the government can't tell you how to speak. They can tell you how big your speech can be, you know. They could -- I guess they could say you can't use neon colors, I suppose. Maybe that could pass muster. And what I'm seeing here is we're imposing a committee that actually is going to say, We don't like that art. You can't do it. Now, if that's what this says, then I'm really concerned about it. And I'm assuming there's lawyers involved, but I also -- and I know, you know, there's -- there is room for some disagreement as far as First Amendment and how it applies to this kind of thing. But I -- I get a little nervous when we have a committee saying what I think is important to express, and the committee doesn't like what I think is important to express on my building, and, you know -- and you approve what somebody else does want to express. And can you answer that? Why is this a good idea to have a government committee with government authority -- maybe it's not a government committee, but a committee that has government authority, ultimately, dictate the content of the speech? Because this to me seems like it's a content of speech, which is you can't say this, but you can say that, and I have a real problem with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And what the commissioner is referring to, of course, as I'm sure practically everyone knows, is the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right of free speech. So we need to turn to our esteemed county attorney and let us know where we are on this. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not a big fan of murals just for that reason, all right, because I remember years ago somebody in Naples put up a sign. It was a coffee shop; what was it called? MR. BOSI: Bad Ass Coffee. MR. KLATZKOW: Bad Ass Coffee, and I had a commissioner up on the dais just go ballistic over that. I mean, what some people view as artistic, other people view as smut. I don't know what else to say. So we are not a fan of this. Now, from my personal standpoint, there's a difference between publicly funded art and non-publicly funded art. Publicly funded art you've got the absolute right to say yes or no to it, so I have no objection to that. But is this going to work without a challenge? Well, I guess we'll address that then, but I'm not a big fan of it; never have been. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess my question for the commissioners, staff, attorney is how different is this from an architectural review board in that areas have standards that they want upheld, and so they hold people to go through an application process to uphold those standards, and the art would be a part of the overall look and feel of the Bayshore Triangle. You've put a lot of effort and they have a very well organized group there. I know Ms. Forester has spoken before us before. So have you -- I'm assuming this idea has been floated to the residents. You've had public meetings. So tell us why you think this idea will fly without significant challenges, as the attorney mentioned. MS. DeJOHN: Right. I mean, the alternative is that no expression occurs on the sides of buildings, that -- you know, the architectural standards, the limitation on colors, the rules about what goes on the building restricts any type of art. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, as of now, that's the case; no art allowed. MS. DeJOHN: So no art has been allowed. And this is a mechanism that has developed the prior mechanism that was already in place to allow murals to, like you said, be -- you know, this has been since 2012. I mean, we're talking almost 10 years have gone by. A public art consultant was commissioned. A year-long process was engaged with public surveys, public meetings, public engagement to determine what are the desires of the community. Murals happen on all the different variety of the way public art can be implemented. Murals rose high on the list 5.A.f Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 41 of 48 when surveys were conducted as something the community wanted to see. And we're talking about the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area in this discussion. So that work has been done. And, I mean, you know, the review today is to look at those strike/underlines, also acknowledge that this is implementing and in conformance with a board-approved plan, Public Art Plan, to not have art decisions made by a CRA Advisory Board but through a public art committee that has now been formed as of Tuesday, and then ultimate decision by the Board of County Commissioners. That public art committee is advisory. MR. KLATZKOW: Laura, I think you've done a great job. Don't view this as criticism. But the definition of a mural, I don't know what the distinction between graffiti and a mural would be. It just falls right square within the definition. And, again, I commend you on the work you did. I don't know a way around it. I agree with Commissioner Klucik. It's -- you can have murals, but be careful what you wish for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm of the same view, and I don't like the word "marking," because it's so broad. Certainly, I think it would include graffiti. I wonder, would it include a political sign? I just don't know. So the definition -- and I also agree with the County Attorney, Ms. DeJohn, you do great work, so this is not in any way to be a criticism of you or anybody else. It's just the definition, in my view, of mural, any drawing, artwork, inscription, or marking that is marked, etched, drawn, painted, that paints with a very broad brush. And it goes, I think to a point that is arguably perilously close to a constraint on freedom of speech. And so that's one concern I have. And I'll call on you in a moment, Commissioner Klucik. But the other concern I have is the juxtaposition or the dissonance, if you will, between this new definition of mural -- it's very broad -- and then 4.02.16.H, which talks about murals, and it refers to murals as being allowed as public art, but yet the definition of mural goes way beyond public art. It includes markings. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And, yeah, I just think it's -- you either -- you either allow murals or you don't. I agree with what our County Attorney has said that it's different. It's absolutely different. If we're talking about a wall that is owned by the government, then the government can, you know, can -- within certain limits, they can say whatever they want to say, and so there's broad -- I think relatively broad allowance for the government to dictate that speech and say I don't like -- you know, the committee, whatever, whoever the authority is can say I don't like that or that's not something that the community would like or, you know, whatever, and they can put up what they want to put up. I think what -- as a first step, if we're not going to do anything else -- if we're actually going to entertain this, then I would say this whole thing has to be reviewed, or I would ask that we -- as a board here, that we direct the County Attorney to review this to see if anything that's being proposed is actually content regulation, because content regulation means what is the message. Can the message be restricted by the -- can the private actor's message be restricted by this private board? Because if any of this says that that is true or can be interpreted that that's what authority, you know, is being given, then you can't do it. I mean, we could do it, but then we're going to get sued, and I don't think it's good public policy, so I would definitely militate against it. MR. KLATZKOW: We're of the same mind here. This is like a light switch. It's either on or it's off. And if you're going to put it on, that's fine; we will have murals. I will tell you that somebody will put up a mural that people are not going to like just -- you can't get 100 percent of the people to like 100 percent of things. There will be complaints about it, and there's nothing you're going to be able to do about it after the fact. That's after the fact. Now, before the fact, Commissioner Klucik is absolutely correct. I don't know how you say -- I don't know how you say no -- if it's not publicly funded, I don't know how you say no to somebody saying I want to put this on my wall. I don't know how you say it. I'm sorry. If we're doing this, it's fine, we will have murals. And I'm not opining whether that's a good idea or a bad idea. I'm just saying be careful what you wish for. That's all. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 42 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Again, I just -- for clarity, you can't -- you can't put a mural on your wall currently, correct; is that correct? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So this is opening up an avenue with controls to allow murals but with some type of a mechanism in place to try to make sure that they aren't offensive, I guess; that they pass the muster test of this public art committee or board -- MS. DeJOHN: Public art committee. MR. KLATZKOW: This is just like our bus advertising where we have to be very, very, very careful in delineating what can be and what can't be used on bus advertising, because once we go just a little bit too far, then it's everything, all right. And so we're very, very narrow in what we do, and it's basically just public service announcement type stuff that we allow on it. And so this is -- this is more than this. Commissioner Klucik's right. It's content based, all right. I don't like -- I don't like what this mural has to say, because by mural, it's artwork. Art says something. I don't like what this says so, therefore, we're going to deny what you're putting on this wall. I can't defend that. Now, if you want to have color schemes that everybody has to comply with, like we don't want to see black walls, which we have that, I believe, in our architectural features, you can do that, all right. I mean, you could be color specific because that's content neutral. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt just to answer your point earlier that the difference with an architectural review committee is the architectural review committee, if you allowed, you know, "God bless America," you would have to allow "Let's Go Brandon." You know, I mean, it's just that's -- because you can't -- you can't make those distinctions under the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment you can't have a -- and this is a government actor. I think in an HOA you probably can. But I'm talking about when the government is involved, you can't tell people this is good, this is bad. And the converse of what you said is true, too. You could have the people on the committee are, you know, kind of, you know -- I don't know, it wouldn't be a surprise if some of them are, you know, very progressive and then they want -- they love, you know, murals with a progressive or a transgressive kind of mural to get people to think, you know -- because we see that all the time. You know, you put something that is obnoxious just because -- to say, hey, we're in the artsy section, and we want people to know that we're different. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's fine. And architecture's like -- again, Ray will correct me if I'm wrong. We do not allow neon lights in Collier County, but that's content neutral because we don't say what your neon lights can say or can't say. So we just don't allow neon lights. Architectural review is we don't allow this color, we don't allow this type of feature. If you're going to have windows, they've got to be separated by -- it's all content neutral. A mural, by definition, is content based, all right. And you can have these things. I mean, they're all over Fort Lauderdale. They're in other areas, you know, that we're all familiar with. And you may like nine out of 10 of them. You may find that 10th to be horrible, but that 10th gets to stay there just as well as the other nine do. So just -- this is what we're doing. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was going -- I know, Eric, you want to speak. I wanted to ask Laura -- it looks like there's an exemption for private murals that are not within view of the public right-of-way, the public roads, correct? MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if I have a -- if you pass this, and I have a property that doesn't face anywhere I can see it from the road, I can put whatever I want on that wall under this plan? MS. DeJOHN: Right. Like the internal courtyard of the restaurant or, you know, anything not viewable gets to be painted however that owner wants to paint it. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 43 of 48 CHAIRMAN FRYER: That almost makes it worse. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just to back up, I'm not sure I fully understand. Right now murals are not allowed? If we don't -- if we just reject this, are murals allowed? And what -- MS. FORESTER: Hi. For the record, Deborah Forester, CRA director. So the murals were allowed, I believe, in 2012, and the Bayshore CRA, we really didn't have any real activity on murals. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say "allowed," you mean by something written somewhere as a code? MS. FORESTER: In the code in the overlay it allows murals only in two locations in the county. One is in Immokalee CRA and one is in the CRA Bayshore/Gateway CRA, Community Redevelopment Area. So in 2018, I believe, we had a couple of murals that went forward on Bayshore Drive. We did not have any in place. We didn't have an application in place. We didn't have any, really, review process in place. The two owners came to the advisory board and said, we'd like to put up a mural. Everybody said, that's great. Go ahead and do it. Then when they did it, because we did not have a process in place, it became apparent that there were some violations to the code. It didn't follow the size. It didn't follow the requirement. It couldn't cover up windows and doors. And so at a joint meeting with the CRA advisory board and the Board of County Commissioners, the Board decided that we weren't going to allow any more murals in that area until we came up with a process, and this process had led us to today. We have -- as Laura mentioned, we had gone through a public art planning process. The Board adopted a pilot project that could be used throughout the county. On Tuesday night they approved the establishment of a public art committee. I think the reason we wanted to go with a public art committee -- and the requirements on that is for people that have a background interest in art, architecture, have design background, so that our advisory committee wasn't making a recommendation that this is quality, that it meets the standards of what that size should be and things likes like that. I agree there are going to be -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry. Could you repeat what you just said. I didn't -- did you say it does or it doesn't? MS. FORESTER: The public art committee doesn't meet the intent of the mural code, so -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. You had mentioned that this art committee was going to weigh in on or not weigh in on, and then you listed a couple things. I'm just -- if you could say what -- MS. FORESTER: Okay. I can't probably back up in my mind exactly what I said, but I think what I was trying to say is that that public art committee's responsibility is to review an application to make sure it complies with the code that we're bringing forward to you today. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Okay. You had mentioned some criteria, I thought. MS. FORESTER: Well, the criteria like the size, the complements, the building character, and follows the vision of the CRA, I would say. Laura's going to give me the exact code, if you want, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While you're looking for that, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So there's only two places in the county that murals are allowed? MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's kind of interesting, I guess, for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Johnson. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's probably a question, yes, for Eric. MR. JOHNSON: Well, actually, I just wanted to make a statement. Eric Johnson, 5.A.f Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 44 of 48 principal planner for zoning. Not an attorney, but as a planner it's my understanding that, with respect to murals, you could regulate them based on time, place, and manner. If you look at the proposed changes that are being made to the text, you'll see that it doesn't talk about -- any of the changes doesn't talk about what the speech says. We're proposing to change, you know, No. 4, which is proposal No. 3, murals are permitted on sections of buildings where the mural will not negate the purpose of the building's design treatments listed in LDC section 5.05.08.D.5. Number 6, the building owner or property owner associated, where applicable, is responsible for mural maintenance and shall submit a mural maintenance plan to the County Manager or designee. Number 7, the mural will complement the design of the building in color, shape, and location. This is an attempt to try to stay away from any kind of issue with respect to the speech or what's being shown on this -- on the mural. This Land Development Code amendment is also -- has a companion administrative code amendment which outlines the process by which one would obtain a mural. So I think the conversation is good and the conversation is valid but, in my opinion, these changes that are being proposed are not related to speech. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Why wouldn't it arguably prohibit a political sign? What about a person who says that's a marking? MR. JOHNSON: Well, obviously, you know, when trying to define what a mural is, it's good to have different components to what a mural is and what a mural is not. And so if the -- if it's this Planning Commission's direction to not have marking as being part of the definition, then I don't think staff would have a problem with that, if I hear anything. But I mean, a mural as far as I know, painting on the side of a building or a structure, Ms. Forester wanted to have more flexibility in what is a mural and what isn't a mural, so that was an attempt here. But like when you go to different places throughout the country, the states, and cities, you know, you see what murals are and, basically, it could be all sorts of things. In my opinion, there are many, many paintings with different types of paints that are used, temporary or permanent. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, why aren't -- I guess I'm confused. If it's such a good thing, why aren't we listening to something that would change the county regulations to allow this to apply everywhere? It always bothers me when a couple of little areas have a different set of standards. MR. KLATZKOW: Because, by definition, we only want them in blighted areas. The Immokalee CRA and the Bayshore CRA, by definition, those are blighted areas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the intention is laudable, but we've got to somehow be consistent with freedoms of speech. We know that the folks in -- well, take the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area, they want to upgrade themselves and they want to prohibit certain things that they might find offensive. But, you know, you've got to be really careful when you go in that direction. Commissioner Klucik, you're still -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Could you -- and here's what I'll tell you. If you know, my particular suggestion was that we look at this, and we have a review by our attorney to see if it was, you know, time, place, manner, whatever -- what was the list? Is that what you said? MR. KLATZKOW: That's what I said. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. That's kind of the Supreme Court language. And if that's all this is, then I have -- you know, then I'm really not going to have an objection to it, but what I would say is I think it would be good to add a proactive statement that this committee shall not, you know, weigh in on the content or make any decisions based on, you know, the content of the mural or the message of the mural. What I would ask is, very basically, the BGTCRA Public Art Pilot Program is in the LDC 4.02.16.H. I guess, does the Public Art Pilot Program, does that -- or I doubt the LDC section has that in there, but does -- the Public Art Pilot Program, can we see that? Does that have language in 5.A.f Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 45 of 48 there that would tend to implicate, you know, content-based decision making? So does the -- MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. The pilot plan has explanations of a mural program and guidelines -- general guidelines for PAC review. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Do you have that language? Can we look at it? Is it long? Well, then, you know, here's what I think -- I don't want to take up the time because I don't think we're going to get a -- I don't think it looks like we're going to get a positive vote on this today. I would suggest maybe that we do that, if we could ask the attorney to look at this document as proposed as well as -- you know, obviously, part of that would be looking at this Public Art Pilot Program, because it's saying that whatever is submitted -- whatever mural is submitted has to comply with the Public Art Pilot Program requirements. And so then it would be important that that Public Art Pilot Program doesn't also contain, you know, things that potentially offend the First Amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we could take another look at it if you'd like. I mean, if that's the Planning Commission's -- I'd rather take another look at it and bring it back then you guys say no. I'll just put it that way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment. I'd entertain a motion at this point. No one is signaling. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's get a motion on the floor, and then we'll let you speak, Mr. Johnson. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll move that we not vote on this today and knowing that we're asking our attorney to take a look at it and, specifically, whatever it is that we're going to adopt and any other regulations or guidelines that are implicated or referenced also don't walk into the First Amendment concerns that we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point of clarification. Would that be a request that we continue indefinitely? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, until such time as the attorney is able to get us -- COMMISSIONER FRY: January 20th. MR. KLATZKOW: Your next meeting is when? MR. EASTMAN: The 20th. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, that's plenty of time. You'll have -- just continue it to your next meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Yeah, that will be my motion, then, that we continue it to the next meeting -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and we direct the attorney to give us that report back or his opinion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this from the new Public Art Plan or -- what's on the visualizer? MR. JOHNSON: This -- yes, correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is new -- MS. DeJOHN: This is the adopted Public Art Plan from July 2021 adopted by the Board. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Item J right there doesn't pass the test. It can't be political, religious or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's have the record show that Commissioner Shea seconds. Any further discussion on this? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Fry. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 46 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to allow Mike to speak first. MR. BOSI: Just as we're continuing it, can we -- January 20th is the next CCPC. So just for advertising purposes, if we can continue it to that date specific, our advertising will still be valid. Instead of the next public meeting, just clarify that it's January 20th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: January 20 it is. And before we vote -- and I've got Mr. Commissioner Klucik lit, but I also want to hear from Mr. Johnson, who's been waiting. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. I just wanted to say that -- I wanted to clarify some comments that I made in my pitch for trying to propose this. It's been my experience, my personal experience, that I've only seen murals that are painted, that sort of thing. Even though the definition has different components to it, my personal experience is that it's only, you know, paint. So that's all. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. Looking at these general design guidelines A, B, C, D, and J, for sure, are all not going to, you know, pass muster. Those are definitely content-based judgments. And so if you don't think that the -- I mean, the First Amendment is designed expressly to make sure that "A" can never rule, so that my building -- everyone can have a mural. I own a building. I want to say something that doesn't have the support of the community. The First Amendment is only -- it doesn't exist to -- you don't need to protect what the community supports, the speech community -- the community supports. The only speech that the First Amendment protects is speech that the community probably is not going to want to hear. And so that's kind of a classic example. So A, B, C, D, and J, right off the bat. So what I would say is, please don't bring something back to us that doesn't eliminate things like that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I appreciate the legal conversation, and I'm not -- I'm certainly not looking that we perpetuate something that doesn't hold up, right. I just wanted to signal my support for the concept that I think the Bayshore CRA has done a great job of re-branding, and this is an attempt to continue branding as an art district and, I think, increasing the flavor of it and the attraction of it, and I'm all for that, supporting that, if we can, without getting ourselves into legal trouble, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would say that if it is a government-owned building, then A, B, C, and D probably would, you know, be appropriate, you know. If the government controls the property. But on property that isn't controlled by the government, those criteria are just untenable as a First Amendment analysis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. DeJohn, did you want to be heard? MS. DeJOHN: No. I'm absorbing all the comments so that we come back with something that you find enjoyable. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got a motion and a second. I want to say one final word and then unless -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I want you to have the final word, so can I say something first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I mentioned this to Mr. Bosi when we had our little preliminary meeting. So I moved to Florida from Bavaria, Germany. And in Germany they have these beautiful villages. And, you know, along the main little streets where all the people are going to walk and the courtyards, they have these amazing murals and stucco walls. And there's, like, one village 5.A.f Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 47 of 48 that that's all it is. Oberammergau, they have, you know, like dozens of buildings. They have these beautiful murals. And so when I moved to Ave Maria, I was like, well, this is like maybe this town could do something like that. I could put a mural. I live right on Ave Maria Boulevard. Everyone who drives into town drives right by my house. And so I thought that would be really cool. And every time I thought about it, I was like, no, no, because as soon as you let me put what I like up, you have to let my neighbor put what he likes up. And that's -- so I kind of -- I love the idea of having public art. I just do. And so it has nothing to do with an animus against public art, and I just wanted to make that clear. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. As a final word, I would urge my fellow planning commissioners to approve this motion because I don't think that it would look particularly good optically, if you will, for us to pass this the way it is, and it might hamstring the county without first being scrutinized by our able County Attorney and his staff. So having said that, unless there are further comments, we'll call the question. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just add -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: What about my final word? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, it's in direct response. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, no more. MR. EASTMAN: You lied, you lied. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's in direct response. And I guess I would ask, I would have -- I guess am surprised that this didn't have, you know, specific legal scrutiny, you know, so you did make a recommendation to us. And I just -- you know, why didn't the process have that included? And it's not a criticism. It's a question. Maybe we could avoid it in the future, whatever. You have a million things going on, and I understand some things slip through or whatever, but I -- that's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair enough. All those in favor of the motion to continue this to January 20, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Under old business, we don't have any before us. Under new business, there's none. Any public comment, Mr. Youngblood? He's shaking his head in the negative. So there's no public comment. Therefore, without objection, we stand adjourned. ******* 5.A.f Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) December 16, 2021 Page 48 of 48 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:17 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ___________, as presented ________ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: 12-16-21CCPC Formatted (21135 : Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) 02/17/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: ***This item has been continued from the December 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting to the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and is currently continued indefinitely*** PL20210002450 Murals in the BGTCRA- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, relating to murals in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to create a definition for a mural; amend the standards for murals; and create a public hearing process for murals that are subject to Public Art Committee review, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter One General Provisions, including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Four Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; Chapter Ten Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including Section 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LDC Planning Manager] Meeting Date: 02/17/2022 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 01/24/2022 4:00 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 01/24/2022 4:00 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 01/26/2022 3:45 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 01/27/2022 10:37 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 02/02/2022 8:14 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 02/05/2022 11:43 AM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 02/17/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 290 02/17/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to allow a drive-thru restaurant instead of a carwash in the Immokalee 7-Eleven Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by amending Ordinance Number 2021-22 to add eating places with a drive-thru and food stores as permitted uses, remove the car wash use and related developer commitment, reduce the total commercial square footage from 5,650 to 5,250, and increase the maximum two-way PM peak hour net new trips generation limit from 157+/- to 167+/-, on property located at the northwest corner of Main Street (SR 29) and North 9th Street, Immokalee, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.04+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] Meeting Date: 02/17/2022 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Laura DeJohn 01/25/2022 11:31 AM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 01/25/2022 11:31 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 01/26/2022 2:35 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 01/26/2022 3:43 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 01/27/2022 10:36 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 01/27/2022 11:47 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 01/31/2022 7:42 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 02/17/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 291 PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 1 of 12 January 25, 2022 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20210001637 IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) AMENDMENT PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: 41287 Immokalee FL, LLC Dan Creighton , Manager 2240 W First Street, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Agent: Fred Drovdlic, AICP Waldrop Engineering 1514 Broadway, Suite 201 Fort Myers, FL 33901 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to allow a drive-thru restaurant instead of a carwash in the Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD by amending Ordinance 21-22, to add Eating Places with a drive-thru and food stores as permitted uses, to remove the carwash use and related developer commitment, to reduce the total commercial square footage from 5,650 to 5,250, and to increase the maximum two-way PM peak hour net new trips generation limit from 157+ to 167+ trips. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of +3.04 acres located on the northwest corner of West Main Street (SR 29) and North 9th Street, in the Immokalee urbanized area within Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on page 2) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 2 of 12 January 25, 2022 9.A.2.aPacket Pg. 293Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 3 of 12 January 25, 2022 PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject site is zoned Immokalee 7-Eleven Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) within the Immokalee Area Overlay and the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict, Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones W-3 and W-4, and Airport Overlay. The CPUD was originally approved by Ordinance 21-22 (PL20200000756) on June 8, 2021. A companion Automobile Service Station Waiver was also approved by Resolution 21-116 (PL20190001744) to allow the location of fuel pumps within 500 feet of the existing facility with fuel pumps across North 9th Street. The petitioner’s request is a narrow set of changes to the CPUD to refine the list of intended uses associated with the 7-Eleven by modifying the CPUD permitted uses to add eating places with drive- thru and food stores in conjunction with the approved gas station/convenience store use, and to remove the proposed carwash. The Master Plan is updated to refine the footprint of the convenience store to accommodate a drive- thru, to eliminate the carwash, and to reduce the total commercial square footage from 5,650 square feet to 5,250 square feet. An updated Traffic Study reflects the addition of the eating place with drive-thru and elimination of carwash results in approximately 10 additional PM peak hour trips generated by the project. No new deviations are requested. The elimination of the carwash alleviates Developer Commitment 5.D. that referenced operational standards for carwashes. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the property subject to the rezoning request. The subject site is primarily undeveloped except for two buildings in the southwest corner that are operated as an auto shop and a hair salon. SURROUNDING: North: Residential single family homesite, zoned Residential Single Family with Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (RSF-3-MSOSD) with a Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-4 (ST/W-4) and Airport Overlay East: Existing Handy Convenience Store with four fueling positions, zoned C- 4-MSOSD with Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-4 (ST/W-4) and Airport Overlay South: West Main Street Right-Of-Way, beyond which are three vacant sites zoned C-4-MSOSD with Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-3 (ST/W-3) and Airport Overlay West: Currently undeveloped Lot 2 of the 7-Eleven #1045471 Subdivision, zoned C-4-MSOSD, beyond which is multifamily residential development zoned R. Robert’s Estate MPUD. All subject to a Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-3 and W-4 (ST/W-3 and ST/W-4) and Airport Overlay. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 4 of 12 January 25, 2022 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land-use decisions, such as this proposed amendment. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any amendment petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP as summarized below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated within the Immokalee FLUE as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Subdistrict. The CMU permits a wide range of commercial uses as permitted within the C -1 through C-4 zoning districts, which include gas stations, convenience stores, and eating establishments. This petition is consistent with the GMP. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s September 29, 2021 Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the applicable 2020 and 2021 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 5 of 12 January 25, 2022 transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this revised petition the proposed development will generate a projected total of +/- 167 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segments of State Road 29 which is an additional +/- 10 PM peak hour, 2-way trips than the current PUD allows. The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link using the 2020 and 2021 AUIR: Link/Roadway Link 2020 AUIR LOS 2021 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Trips 2020 Remaining Capacity 2021 Remaining Capacity • 85.0/State Road 29 (SR 29) 9th Street to County Road 29A North (CR 29A) D D 900/South 34/SB 185 108 • 84.0/State Road 29 (SR 29) County Road 29A South to 9th Street B B 1,700/West 29/N/B 991 948 58.0/North 1st Street New Market Road to State Road 29 C C 900/North 4NB 226 256 46.0/Immokalee Road Oil Well Road to State Road 29 C D 900/East 12/EB 242 171 47.0/Lake Trafford Road Carson Road to State Road 29 C C 800/East 12/EB 247 207 • State Road 29 is under the jurisdiction of Florida State Department of Transportation (FDOT). 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 6 of 12 January 25, 2022 Based on the TIS, the 2020 and 2021 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP. GMP Conclusion: Staff finds the petition consistent with the applicable policies of the Growth Management Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan. Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Advisory Board: At their October 20, 2021 meeting, the applicant presented the petition to the Redevelopment Advisory Board for the CRA in Immokalee. The Advisory Board voted unanimously to support the project. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (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 CCPC’s recommendation. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUDA petition to address environmental concerns. The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of the PUD document (Ordinance 2021-22). The property had been historically cleared and maintained clear of native vegetation. Therefore, the PUD Master Plan does not show a preserve, since no minimum preservation is required; however, a tree survey of the property will be needed at the time of SDP and/or PPL to evaluate if any trees on -site meet the requirements of LDC Section 3.05.07.A.2. 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 petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utilities Review: The site is served by the Immokalee Water and Sewer District. The petitioner submitted a letter from the District dated July 31, 2019 that indicated capacity and service is available for wastewater and potable water. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 7 of 12 January 25, 2022 Landscape Review: The landscape buffers depicted on the Master Plan are consistent with the LDC requirements. Enhanced buffer types as applicable for facilities with fuel pumps and drive-thrus will be required to be provided at time of SDP. Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff has evaluated the proposed uses relative to intensity and compatibility. Prior to the CPUD designation, the subject site’s underlying zoning was General Commercial (C-4), which allows a wide range of uses, including those requested. A rezoning to CPUD was required for this site because it deviates from Main Street Overlay Subdistrict standards. The Main Street Overlay Subdistrict is meant to encourage development and redevelopment by enhancing and beautifying Immokalee’s downtown Main Street area. Per LDC Section 2.03.07.G.5, the Overlay restricts some automobile-oriented uses, and in particular, identifies that a drive-thru may be authorized as a conditional use on the subject property because it has frontage on North 9th Street. While the drive-thru may be allowed through conditional use approval within the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict, the site design as proposed does not comply with the Overlay Subdistrict design standards of LDC Section 4.02.32 which require buildings to be near the street with parking located to the side and rear yards only, and a deviation has been approved by Ordinance 21-22 to allow parking located in the front of the site along Main Street and along North 9th Street. PUD and Rezoning Findings summarized below offer conclusions of zoning services review. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” 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. Zoning Division staff has reviewed the proposed PUD amendment request and finds that the proposed change of use from carwash to eating place with drive-thru, reduction of total commercial square footage from 5,620 sq. ft. to 5,250 sq. ft., and previously approved convenience store with 20 fueling positions, together with the enhanced compatibility improvements required by the LDC, and additional requirements contained in the CPUD document are compatible with the existing commercial and multi-family development and the zoning designations in the area. The Immokalee Water & Sewer District has stated that water and wastewater services capacity is available. The Transportation Planning staff has indicated that the access points to the site from N. 9th Street and W. Main Street for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian will allow for a more equal distribution of trips entering and exiting the facility and the available capacity within the roads anticipated to be impacted by the new trips is sufficient. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, par ticularly 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 8 of 12 January 25, 2022 as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and demonstrate unified control. 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 conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on page 4. 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 proposed change in use to accommodate an eating place with drive-thru and eliminate carwash is compatible with the mix of commercial and residential development within the surrounding area. Perimeter landscape buffers are labeled on the Master Plan are consistent with the LDC. The loading, service area, and drive-thru are located to face toward the west and not toward street frontages or toward the residential property to the north. The Master Plan also provides for future interconnection to the parcel to the west of the property. Final design of the site including access drives and drive-thru will be subject to review and approval at the time of SDP. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. For Commercial PUDs, thirty percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space according to LDC Section 4.07.02.G.2. The PUD Master Plan indicates compliance with this standard, with at least 0.91 acres of the 3.04-acre site designated for open space. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Compliance with all applicable concurrency management regulations is required, including but not limited to site development plans. Immokalee Water and Sewer District has indicated capacity and service is available for wastewater and potable water. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 9 of 12 January 25, 2022 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The CPUD Master Plan indicates that the subject 3.04-acre site is able to interconnect with the +4-acre lot to the west, which is Lot 2 of the same subdivision. Therefore, the surrounding area is adequate for accommodating future expansion. 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. No new deviations are proposed in connection with the request to amend the PUD. Final design of the site including access drives and drive-thru will be subject to review and approval at the time of SDP. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable”: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning, Environmental and Transportation staff have reviewed the petition and analyzed it for consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. The changes associated with this PUD Amendment are consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern of abutting properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed change to the CPUD to add eating place with drive-thru and eliminate the proposed carwash is in keeping with the existing land use patterns. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is currently zoned CPUD and will remain as such. This PUD Amendment does not create an isolated district, but rather accommodates a commercial use within the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict, which promotes commercial development along this corridor. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 10 of 12 January 25, 2022 The CPUD boundary encompasses and logically accommodates the proposed 7-Eleven convenience store, eating place with drive-thru, and fueling facility. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner seeks to accommodate the convenience of an eating place with drive-thru to serve the surrounding community. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of 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 PUD Amendment is not anticipated to create adverse drainage impacts in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the stormwater management system and design criteria at the time of Site Development Plan review. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The changes requested in association with this PUD Amendment are not additionally impactful to the light and air for adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 11 of 12 January 25, 2022 This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property value is affected by many factors including macro level market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The majority of the adjacent property is undeveloped. The addition of an eating place with drive-thru and elimination of proposed car wash is not likely to deter development activity of surrounding property, but rather to encourage it. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The PUD Amendment has been found to comply with the GMP, thus it is consistent with public policy in alignment with the public welfare, and the change does not result in the granting of a special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed eating place with drive-thru use cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The PUD Amendment and resulting eating place with drive-thru will not be out of scale with the needs of the community. In fact, the accommodation of the proposed commercial use is in keeping with the community desires for commercial development along this primary corridor in Immokalee. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The application was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The CPUD has a narrow range of development options, with convenience store (food store), fueling facilities and eating place with drive-thru as permitted uses. The majority of the site has been cleared previously, and two commercial buildings are existing onsite. To develop the proposed uses, site alteration will occur. Requirements and development standards applied during the SDP process will result in improved site conditions. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) PUDA-PL2020001637 Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Page 12 of 12 January 25, 2022 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project must comply with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and must be consistent with applicable goals and objectives of the GMP related to adequate public facilities. The petition has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff for consistency with the GMP as part of the rezone amendment process and found to be consistent. Concurrency review for Adequate Public Facilities is determined at the time of SDP review. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): A NIM was held on September 13, 2021 at Lozano’s Restaurant, 405 New Market Road East. No members of the public appeared for the meeting in person or by Zoom as of 5:45 p.m., therefore no meeting was conducted. Documentation of the NIM notification is included in Attachment B of this Staff Report. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s office on January 25, 2022. (DDP) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval of the PUDA. Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance B. Applicant’s Backup Material 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: 01-25-22 - Immokalee 7-ELEVEN PUDA Staff Report - DDP Edits (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 308Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 309Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 011422 (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD Planned Unit Development Amendment January 25, 2022 PREPARED FOR: Creighton Development SUBMITTED TO: Collier County Government Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 Contents APPLICATION AFFIDAVITS OF AUTHORIZATION, DISCLOSURE AND UNIFIED CONTROL PROJECT NARRATIVE AERIAL LOCATION MAP PUD DOCUMENT DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS SIGN POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES ADDRESSING CHECKLIST WARRANTY DEEDS PLAT AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT HEARING WAIVERS ZONING APPROVALS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 APPLICATION 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)41287 IMMOKALEE FL, LLC Dan Creighton 2240 W FIRST ST STE 101 Fort Myers FL 33901 (239) 210-0455 (239) 989-3471 (239) 673-7328 levans@creightondev.com Fred Drovdlic, AICP Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 1514 Broadway, #201 Fort Myers FL 33901 (239) 318-6707 (239) 989-3370 fred.drovdlic@waldropengineering.com 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: •If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; •The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and •The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)CPUD CPUD Vacant Food store with fuel pumps, eating place with drive thru. Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD 2021-22 4 47 29 See Sketch & Description from Plat Appl PL20190002953 00122760008; 00122800007; 00122720006; 00122680007 317 417 132,422 3.04 The property is located at the NW corner of Main Street (SR 29) and N. 9th Street. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)RSF-3 Industrial at NW; Residential at NE C-4-MSOSD Vacant C-4-MSOSD Convenience store with fuel pumps PUD Multi-Family Residential N/A 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a.The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b.Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at pu blic expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c.Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d.The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which c onditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f.The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h.Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to asce rtain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)See Request Narrative. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an applicati on “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)N/A 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e.Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)Fred Drovdlic, AICP 1514 Broadway, #201 Fort Myers FL 33901 (239) 318-6707 239-989-3370 fdrovdlic@rviplanning.com 107 N. 9th Street Immokalee FL 34142 4 47 29 See Sketch & Description from Plat Appl PL20190002953 00122760008; 00122800007; 00122720006; 00122680007 X Immokalee Water & Sewer District x Immokalee Water & Sewer District 4720 1063 4720 1063 03/01/2022 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)The Applicant intends to connect the proposed convenience store to Immokalee's Sewer System. Applicant intends for all utilities within the project boundary to be privately owned and maintained. Portions of utilities within the County right-of-way will be dedicated to Immokalee Utilities. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre-application meeting notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Checklist continues on next page 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)n X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 X 1 X only proposed changes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: City of Naples Utilities Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: o Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)1 X X X X n n Craig Brown-Environmental Immokalee CRA x include changed pages and plans only x x 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 11 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 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 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. ___________________________________ _____________ Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date ___________________________________ Printed named of signing party 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)Fred Drovdlic, AICP 2022-01-25 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 AFFIDAVITS OF AUTHORIZATION, DISCLOSURE AND UNIFIED CONTROL 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 331Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 332Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 333Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 334Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 335Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 PROJECT NARRATIVE 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 1 of 10 Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD I. Project Overview Dan Creighton of Creighton Companies, LLC (“Applicant”) are seeking approval for a PUD Amendment for the Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD (“Property”), that was recently approved as Ordinance 2021-22 in case #PL20200000756 as was the companion Automobile Service Station Waiver as Res. 21-116 in case # PL20190001744. The Property is a 3+/- acre project located at the northwest corner of SR 29 and North 9th Street in the unincorporated Immokalee area of Collier County, Florida. It is designated as Commerce Commercial Subdistrict within the Urban Infill Overlay on the Immokalee Future Land Use map, and is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) within the Immokalee Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD). II. Request The request is to amend the following parts of the 7-Eleven Immokalee CPUD: PUD Document: add to the list of permitted uses SIC Code 5812 – Eating Places, Food Stores 5411 and a Drive-through. Site Plan: Remove the car wash and revise the convenience store footprint to show a drive through. Intensity: Reduce the total commercial square footage from 5,650 to 5,250. Traffic Study: Amend the traffic study trip count to include the eating place and drive through. The approved Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) will remain mostly unchanged continuing to allow for an automobile service station and convenience store that includes 16 unleaded refueling positions and 4 diesel only commercial vehicle refueling positions – 20 positions total, and indoor and outdoor seating. The change will be to remove the car wash and add eating places and a drive through in lieu of a car wash and amend the commercial intensity. The maximum requested commercial intensity is reduced to 5,250 square feet for the food store that includes the drive through. No new deviations are being requested. Setbacks, buffers, access, pedestrian connectivity, building orientation and location of the building and parking on site will remain unchanged except to allow a slight reorientation of the footprint of the building for the drive thru circulation and the elimination of the car wash footprint. III. Site and Location The property is located at the northwest corner of W. Main Street (State Road 29) and N. 9th Street. The subject property is 3.04+/- acres recently platted as case #PL20190002953 and recorded as PB 68 PG 65-66. The adjacent property to the west is developed as multifamily housing and zoned PUD. The property to the north that abuts N. 9th Street and the northern boundary of the subject property is zoned RSF- 3 and in the Main Street Overlay subdistrict. It is developed with some single-family homes and an industrial business. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 2 of 10 IV. Land Use and Zoning The is zoned CPD, part of the Immokalee Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD) and in the Commerce Center – Mixed Use Subdistrict Future Land Use Category and Urban Infill Overlay. The MSOSD prohibits certain uses between First and 9th Street. Specifically, within this area that is shown in the blue area on the map, facilities with gas pumps (LDC Section 2.03.07-G.5.c.3) and drive-through areas (LDC Section 2.03.07-G.5.c.8) are not permitted. However, this property lies to the west of this restrictive boundary and is therefore not prohibited technically by the LDC nor the MSOSD. We acknowledge that proposed gas station with a drive through is abutting the restrictive area and that staff support and community support is important to not infringe on the intent of these prohibitions. In the prior rezoning staff has acknowledged that this property is on the outskirts of the downtown area along a major arterial that connects Immokalee to Hendry and Collier County and SR 82 that travels north to Lee County. The location of this property is the transition point to leading out of the City and a more highway oriented use where convenience serves the working and travelling public which includes drive through food serves in addition to the convenience store and diesel. Staff report narrative from prior rezoning: The proposed type and pattern of development of a gas station does not align with the urban form of a traditional Main Street, however the proposed plan is suitable for this location where the physical character of the Main Street corridor transitions away from a boulevard west of 9th Street approaching toward the curve of State Road 29 northward. To serve pedestrians and the surrounding community, the PUD Master Plan includes pedestrian accessibility to convenience goods, provides a pedestrian amenity area along Main Street, and offers seating and bicycle racks, consistent with the overarching goals of encouraging development and redevelopment by enhancing and beautifying Immokalee’s downtown Main Street area. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 3 of 10 V. Environmental Per the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by Dex-Bender no state or federal listed species were observed on-site or within the Project’s vicinity, and the site contains no existing native vegetation. The site has been previously developed and impacted. Additionally, Universal Engineering has completed Phase I and II studies and the site has been deemed ready for development. VI. Infrastructure The subject property will be accessed via SR 29 (W. Main Street), a four-lane divided arterial roadway, and N. 9th Street, a two-lane undivided roadway within the public right-of-way that borders the subject property to the east. Access to the site and internal vehicular circulation are depicted on Exhibit “C” PUD Master Plan in the PUD Document. Pedestrian and bicycles access are also provided via pedestrian interconnections on N. 9th Street and Main Street. Bicycle racks will be provided at the rear of the convenience store. Although, feedback received from the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) discouraged bike racks near the roadways to avoid the long-term daily storage. A vehicular interconnection is also provided to the remaining 4+/- acre property at the northern end of the property. The entrance on N. 9th Street is a full opening and will serve as in the ingress point for commercial diesel services which will keep the larger trucks from circulating around the consumer pumps and primary (front) entrance to the store. The flow on the master site plan is designed so that trucks incoming for diesel service are directed to enter off SR 29 and have a more direct entrance into the diesel canopy. Moreover, there is more flexibility to widen the exit point on the local road that is N. 9th rather than the State Route 29. The entrance onto W. Main Street will be determined by FDOT as to whether it is right-in, right-out or a full access. Pedestrian access from N. 9th Street will be to the south of the entrance providing direct pedestrian access to the main entrance of the building. This will require crossing a vehicular area which will be striped. The entrance from W. Main Street is near the corner of W. Main and N. 9th Streets, runs parallel to the consumer fuel pumps and directly to the front door. The area which crosses the parking and vehicular circulation areas will be striped. The major pedestrian areas to the front of the store will be kept free of commercial truck traffic as the diesel service is on-way from N. 9th and will then exit onto W. Main Street. As for fire, all emergency service vehicles can access all areas of the site with adequate turn radius necessitated by design of a facility with fuel services as deliveries for fuel require significant room. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. roadways are shown to have adequate capacity of “B” under the projected traffic conditions to serve the project. Transportation Commitment 3A in Exhibit “F” of the PUD document sets forth a maximum of 167 two-way, P.M. peak hour trips for the project. The developer will provide for cross access to the adjacent parcel, subject to approval by the owner. The full list of transportation commitments is outlined in Exhibit “F” of the PUD document. Potable water and sanitary sewer for this project will be provided by Immokalee Water and Sewer District. Water service is available from a 12” water main running along N. 9th Street, or a 14” water main running along N. 9th Street toward Main Street. Wastewater service is available from a 15” gravity sewer on the east side of N. 9th Street. Drainage and stormwater management systems will be self-contained on site, and all required regulatory agency permits will be obtained prior to commencement of construction activities. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 4 of 10 VII. Site Plan Details The site will contain a 5,250 square foot convenience store with eating place and drive though, a main fuel canopy with 8 MPDs (16 fueling positions) and a diesel canopy with 3 MPDs (4 fueling positions). Vehicular access will be from W. Main Street and N. 9th Street. Pedestrian and bicycle access are provided via two pedestrian interconnections to N. 9th Street, with direct connection to front and rear entrances of the building, and a sidewalk connection near the corner of W. Main and N. 9th to the front entrance. Bicycle racks will be provided at the rear corner of the building. An interconnection is provided for connection to the remaining 4+/- acre property at the northern end of the property. Design standards are subject to LDC Section 4.02.32 for the Immokalee Main Street Overlay Subdistrict and buffers are intended to meet the enhanced code requirements for facilities with fuel pumps according to LDC Section 5.05.05. Site features include: Indoor and outdoor seating with outdoor seating centralized in a courtyard setting at the rear of the store near the rear entrance and bike racks. Pedestrian connection to W. Main Street and N. 9th provide direct walkways to the front entrance of the store and connection to the rear entrance as well. A special sitting area is designed at the corner of the site at W. Main and N. 9th to be consistent with similar sitting areas in the downtown area. Parking on the Master Plan shows 43 parking spaces including 3 handicapped spaces. Table 1 shows the breakdown and applicable code sections. Code Section Use Requirement Area Required Spaces Provided Spaces 4.05.04.G – Table 17 Convenience store/ delicatessen/ takeout prepared food store 1 per 200 square feet 5,250 SF Store 26.25 42 1 for each 2 seats provided for food patrons 32 seats 16.00 4.05.06.B.1. – Table 18 loading zones for buildings 5,000 but not over 10,000 1 space 5,250 sf building 1 1 TOTAL 43.25 43 VIII. Support In the approved CPUD received full support from the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency for Immokalee. The Applicant expects full support and approval from the CRA regarding the amendment as well. The applicant will meet with the CRA and make a presentation in the regularly scheduled October meeting. In addition, we have received full support from the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce and have every expectation of support for this amendment. We will attend the October Chamber meeting at Lozano’s Restaurant in September. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 5 of 10 IX. Evaluation 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 3+/- acre Property is located at the northwest corner of SR 29 (Main Street) and N. 9th Street intersection with frontage and access to both public roadways. In terms of surrounding development pattern, a multi-family apartment complex is developed to the west; a single- family home and industrial business are developed to the north; Main Street, a four-lane arterial roadway, and vacant commercial uses abuts the Property to the south; and N. 9th Street, a two-lane divided roadway, and an older, smaller automobile service station abuts the property to the east. The Property is bound on all sides by existing development and public rights-of-way. Therefore, the CPUD will serve as an infill redevelopment in an urbanized area of Collier County. The proposed CPUD will provide a logical transition of land use from the multi-family apartments complex to the west to the gradually more intensive Main Street commercial uses toward the east along Main Street. The CPUD will be compatible with the surrounding land use pattern through the internal arrangement of the uses, the placement of required landscape buffers including an 8-foot masonry wall to the north, stormwater and building locations, as shwon on the enclosed PUD Master Plan. The location of the fueling positions are positioned against SR 29 for ease of view to the traveling public, as well as to avoid impacts to the single-family residence to the north. Thereby maximizing separation between the fueling area and existing residential use. Immokalee Sewer and Water District utilties are available along N. 9th Street to provide potable water and sanitary sewer services to the proposed development. Per the Traffic Impact Statement prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. there is adequate capacity along surrounding roadways to service the development, and the proposed intensity will not result in concurrency issues. Therefore, based upon the nature of surrounding uses, the established development pattern along Main Street and N. 9th Street and the project’s access to these roadways, as well as the existing levels of public infrastructure to service the proposed PUD, the Property is suitable for the development of commercial uses as proposed through this application. 2. 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 subject property is under unified control Creighton Development demonstrated by the Statement of Unified Control included in the PUDA application. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 6 of 10 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy or other provision.) Immokalee FLUE Policy A. 5. Commerce Center Mixed Use Subdistrict - The purpose of this designation is to create a major activity center that services the entire Immokalee Urban Designated Area and surrounding agricultural area. The Mixed Use District shall function as an employment center and shall encourage commercial and institutional uses. Uses permitted within this Subdistrict shall include shopping center, governmental institutions, middle or high school, community park and other employment generating uses. Other permitted commercial uses shall include transient lodging facilities at 26 dwelling units per acre. The appropriate zoning districts include C 1 through C 4 as identified in the Land Development Code. The Mixed Use district will be controlled via a series of performance standards that address issues of buffering, noise, signage, lighting, architectural compatibility, lot size, parking and landscaping. The district is a major activity and employment center where commercial uses are encouraged. The services provided by a convenience store with consumer and commercial fueling stations is consistent with this policy as it is a use that serves the entire urban designated area. This application demonstrates that the required infrastructure is available to support the proposed intensity and will allow for the expansion of commercial uses in an area of the County with continued growth of a working residential population, and which is underserved by non-residential uses. The proposed CPUD will allow for infill commercial redevelopment along an urbanized 4-lane arterial corridor, which is a desirable location to direct non-residential uses from a land use planning standpoint. The CPUD rezone is consistent with the above policy. Immokalee FLUE Policy: D.1. Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area - The Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area is consistent with criteria outlined in Section 163.2514(2) (a)- (e), Florida Statutes. The intent of this delineation is to comprehensively address the urban problems within the area consistent with the goals of this plan. This designation is informational and has no regulatory effect. The designation of this area as Urban Infill and Redevelopment follows the Florida Statutes, which means the area surrounding this site has public services such as water and wastewater and transportation; pervasive poverty, unemployment or general distress; exhibits a proportion of properties that are substandard, overcrowded, dilapidated, vacant or abandoned, or functionally obsolete; more than 50 percent of the area is within 1/4 mile of a transit stop; is adjacent to community redevelopment areas, brownfields, enterprise zones, or Main Street programs. The redevelopment of this site is consistent with this land use overlay as it will address the needs of an Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area. It will serve to redevelopment a current vacant, brownfield site on an important economic corner along Main Street within the Main Street Overlay. The site will be a significant investment in an area with high unemployment and provide jobs and needed services to support the local population, including diesel services to support local delivery services. It will be served by urban services such as water, wastewater and arterial and collector roadways and 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 7 of 10 a pedestrian network with new connections and multi-modal services. Immokalee FLUE Objective 1.4: Provide land use designations, criteria and zoning that recognizes the needs of pedestrians. Immokalee FLUE Policy 1.4.3: Collier County shall encourage pedestrian-friendly design for future projects located within the Immokalee Urban Area. As shown on the PUD Master Plan, the CPUD provides an abundance of pedestrian- friendly design components including multiple locations for pedestrian ingress and egress to the Property. Cross walks and striping will also be utilized. Sidewalks are provided on both roadway frontages. Furthermore, the Applicant is providing bike racks at the front and rear of the building to address the mobility needs of the Immokalee community. Immokalee – Main Street Overlay Subdistrict The MSOSD prohibits certain uses between First and 9th Street. Specifically, within this area that is shown in the blue area on the map, facilities with gas pumps (LDC Section 2.03.07-G.5.c.3) and drive-through areas (LDC Section 2.03.07-G.5.c.8) are not permitted. However, this property lies to the west of this restrictive boundary and is therefore not prohibited technically by the LDC nor the MSOSD. We acknowledge that proposed gas station with a drive through is abutting the restrictive area and that staff support and community support is important to not infringe on the intent of these prohibitions. In the prior rezoning staff has acknowledged that this property is on the outskirts of the downtown area along a major arterial that connects Immokalee to Hendry and Collier County and SR 82 that travels north to Lee County. The location of this property is the transition point to leading out of the City and a more highway oriented use where convenience serves the working and travelling public which includes drive through food serves in addition to the convenience store and diesel. FLUE Policy 5.4: 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). As described above, the subject property is compatible with the surrounding area through the site design, proposed landscape buffers, and location of open space and water management areas. The commercial uses will be spatially separated from existing residences on N. 9th Street via the 30-foot-wide landscape buffer and 8-foot tall wall. The proposed development area is also designed to protect public viewsheds and enhance “curb appeal” from Main Street and N. 9th Street. The project will provide the 25-foot enhanced automobile service station buffer. The location of the pedestrian accesses, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, have been located to reduce interaction between pedestrians and vehicles including trucks entering from the N. 9th Street vehicular access. Crosswalks and striping will also be provided for additional safety reasons. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 8 of 10 FLUE 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. Per the attached PUD Master Plan (Exhibit “C”), the CPUD Amendment will have direct access to Main Street (SR 29), and N. 9th Street. FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The multiple access points and circulation will facilitate both pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress to the Property from Main Street (SR 29), and N. 9th Street. FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. As noted above, the project will provide an interconnection to the remaining parcel, subject to the approval of the landowner. Direct interconnection is not proposed to the north due to the existing residential dwelling unit. Policy 6.1.1: For the County’s Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial District and Rural-Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following minimum preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this Policy shall apply to all non- agricultural development except for single-family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed Management Plan developed pursuant to Policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element. For properties not previously within the Coastal High Hazard Area but now within the Coastal High Hazard Area due to adoption of a revised Coastal High Hazard Area boundary in 2013, the native vegetation preservation and retention standards of the Non-Coastal High Hazard Area shall continue to apply. (Reference the Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map in the Future Land Use Element.) The CPUD contains no native vegetation as demonstrated on the enclosed FLUCCS map. For these reasons, the CPUD will not provide native vegetation preservation. However, the CPUD provides the required 30% open space through on-site landscape buffers, stormwater retention ponds, and other areas of open space. CCME OBJECTIVE 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. (The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A- 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 9 of 10 27.005, F.A.C. and those species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17.) In direct compliance with the above policy, the CPUD does not contain any listed animal species, and the surrounding land use pattern is developed lands which also do not contain listed protected species to the Applicant’s knowledge. Please refer to the Protected Species Survey prepared by DexBender, which demonstrates no listed species exist on the 3+/- acre CPUD. 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 proposed commercial building will be developed under a unified design theme with appropriate connectivity, thereby ensuring internal compatibility. The CPUD will be adequately screened from surrounding properties via the proposed buffers and where the CPUD is visible from Main Street or N. 9th Street frontages, appropriate visually aesthetic measures will be taken to weave the project into the Immokalee community via artwork such a mural along the N. 9th Street frontage. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The CPUD will provide 30% on-site open space in accordance with LDC Section 4.07.02.G.2 through the landscape buffers, stormwater management lakes, and other pervious areas demonstrated on the enclosed PUD Master Plan. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. This application demonstrates that there is adequate and available public infrastructure to service the proposed commercial intensity. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The 7-Eleven Immokalee CPUD is located in an area of the County specifically intended for urbanization, as evidenced by proximity to major arterial roadways, urban- levels of infrastructure, and the surrounding land use pattern. 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. The enclosed PUD document demonstrated conformity with the PUD regulations contained in the Land Development Code, unless a deviation has been requested and demonstrates protection of the LDC’s intent for high quality development. Therefore, the project will uphold the intent of the LDC and will not negatively public health, safety or welfare. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Request Narrative & Evaluation Criteria Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD P L20210001637 Last Revised: December 15, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Conclusion In summary, the 7-Eleven Immokalee CPUD Amendment is a compact, infill commercial redevelopment project located in an urban area of the County, and in close proximity to existing and available public infrastructure. The proposed use, extensive buffering and design standards will be compatible with surrounding land use pattern. The proposed deviations will allow for enhanced design flexibility to develop an infill development, while protecting public health, safety and welfare. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 AERIAL LOCATION MAP 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD Folio Number: 73248000077 Name: 41287 IMMOKALEE FL LLC Street# & Name: 920 W MAIN ST Build# / Unit#: / 1 Legal Description: 7 ELEVEN # 104547 LOT 1 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. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 PUD DOCUMENT 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 1 of 9 Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 5,650 5,250 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses shall be constructed within the project as follows: a 4,650 5,250 square foot food store and 1,000 square foot car wash eating place with drive thru. Fueling positions for a facility with fuel pumps shall be limited to 16 unleaded refueling positions and 4 diesel only commercial vehicle refueling positions – a maximum of 20 fueling positions. 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: 1. Gasoline service stations (5541), except auto services and repairs – Limited to one (1) gasoline service station for the entire CPUD, and subject to LDC Section 4.02.32 and LDC Section 5.05.05. 2. Eating places with drive-thru (5812) with 6,000 square feet or less in gross floor area in the principal structure. All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption are subject to the locational requirements of section 5.05.01. 3. Food stores (groups 541102) Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures. 2. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 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. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 2 of 9 Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment Development of the 7-Eleven Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the 7-Eleven Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD. TABLE I COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA1 30,000 SQUARE FEET N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH1 150 FEET N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) 2 Rear 50 FEET SPS Side 50 FEET SPS SR 29 (Main Street) 50 FEET SPS N. 9th Street 50 FEET SPS MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) 2 Rear 50 FEET SPS Side 50 FEET SPS MAXIMUM HEIGHT 2 Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 35 FEET/35 FEET 35 FEET/35 FEET NOTES: (1) According to LDC 5.05.05 B.1 (2) According to LDC 5.05.05 D.1 SPS = Same as Principal Structure 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) EXHIBIT C CPUD MASTER PLAN [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 3 of 9Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 352Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- EXHIBIT C CPUD MASTER PLAN [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 4 of 9Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 353Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD LOT 1 OF THE 7-ELEVEN #1045471 SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 68 PAGES 65-66 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 6 of 9 Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD 1. Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.32 B.2. – Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee—Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD), which requires all properties within the Main Street Overlay subdistrict, having frontage on Main Street, First Street or Ninth Street, to locate all parking areas in the rear yard and/or in side yards; instead allow the parking to be located in front of the building, which faces W. Main Street. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD 1. PURPOSE The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. 2. 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 Creighton Companies, LLC. 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. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 157+/- 167+/- two-way PM peak hour net new 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. B. Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the parcel to the west to allow access consistent with the conceptual PUD Master Plan. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross-access easement, or an access easement for public use without responsibility of maintenance by Collier County, will be provided at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The interconnections shall remain open to the public. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 8 of 9 Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The project does not contain native vegetation; however, the CPUD will provide 30% open space as required by the LDC, or a minimum of 0.91 acres of open space will be provided. B. A tree survey of the property will be needed at the SDP or PPL review to evaluate if any trees on site meet the requirements of LDC 3.05.07 A.2. C. A black bear management plan will need to be included at SDP or PPL review. 5. POLLUTION CONTROL A. All dry detention areas must be completed with the bottom of the detention area set three feet above the seasonal high groundwater table elevation. If an alternative stormwater management system is proposed during SDP additional or alternative requirements may be necessary. B. All stormwater inlets must include the installation and maintenance of a hooded outfall to prevent petroleum hydrocarbons from entering the stormwater management system. C. Any reportable discharge as defined in chapter 62-780, FAC., shall be reported to the State Watch Office or FDEP Office of Emergency Response, and Collier County Pollution Control, no later than 24 hours after occurrence, and Emergency Response Actions as outlined in chapter 62-780, FAC. must commence within 24 hours of any reportable discharge. D. The proposed onsite Car Wash will be required to utilize a total recycle system and abide by all requirements and prohibitions listed in chapter 62-660.803 FAC. Equipment must be maintained per manufacturer specification, and all waste disposal records must be retained onsite for 2 years and made available for review during annual inspection. 6. PUBLIC UTILITIES A. The developer shall connect to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District potable water system at locations determined by the Immokalee Water and Sewer District when capacity is available. B. The project shall connect to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District wastewater collection and conveyance system at locations determined by Immokalee Water and Sewer District when capacity is available. C. The project shall connect to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District Irrigation Quality water system at locations determined by Immokalee Water and Sewer District when capacity is available. 7. MISCELLANEOUS A. Pursuant to Section 120.022(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. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) [21-CPS-02133/1693084/1] Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20210001637 Last Revised: January 14, 2022 Page 9 of 9 Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. C. Mural painting is permitted on the building façade with frontage on N. 9th Street subject to LDC Section 2.03.07.G.7.e.xx. D. The facility will provide the necessary infrastructure and pre-wiring for generator service in case of emergencies, as required by LDC Section 5.05.05.I. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 7-Eleven (#1045471) Immokalee Deviation Justifications Page 1 of 1 Deviations and Justification Narrative Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment PUDA DEVIATION NO. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.32 B.2. – Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee—Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD), which requires all properties within the Main Street Overlay subdistrict, having frontage on Main Street, First Street or Ninth Street, to locate all parking areas in the rear yard and/or in side yards; to allow the parking to be located in front of the building which faces W. Main Street. JUSTIFICATION: Approved by Ordinance 21-22 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 SIGN POSTING 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 362Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- ± 70' APPROX.P:\2019 Projects\190204 7-ELEVEN MAIN ST IMMOKALEE #1045471 -ACTIVE\01-CADD FILES\00-QAI CADD - VERSION A\190204 MCP I [2019-12-02]PLOTTED BY: FEDERICOWED. 12-4-2019 5:08 PM190204 MCP I [2019-12-02].DWGLOCATED IN SECTION , TOWNSHIP -S, RANGE -E, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAQuattrone & Associates, Inc.Engineers, Planners, & Development Consultants4301 Veronica Shoemaker Blvd. | Fort Myers, FL 33916 | 239.936.5222 | QAInc.netSITE FOR 7 ELEVEN # 1045471 IN IMMOKALEE, FL04472940' 80'PLAN VIEW SCALE0'EXISTINGPROPERTYLINEEXISTINGPARCELPROJECTAREAPROPOSEDPROPERTYLINEW MAIN STREETN 9TH STREETN.T.S.KEY MAPPROPOSED PROJECT AREA ± 3 AC.SITE & BUILDING INFORMATIONLOCATION MAPEXISTING PROPERTY LINEN 9TH STREETW MAIN STREET9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 363Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)Sign PlacementSUBJECTPROPERTY3.04 acresParent Properties IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 1 of 1 Memorandum To: Laura DeJohn, AICP From: Fred Drovdlic, AICP cc: Lauren Evans, Creighton Development Date: September 13, 2021 Subject: Immokalee 7-Eleven (Store #1045471) CPUD Amendment – PL20210001637 Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis Waldrop Engineering, P.A., Collier County Staff, and CRA Staff conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Monday, September 13, 2021. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at Lozano’s Mexican Restaurant located at 405 New Market Road East, Immokalee, FL, 34142. No members of the public appeared for the meeting in person or by Zoom as of 5:45 pm, therefore no meeting was conducted. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) August 27, 2021 S: NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN (STORE #1045471) CPUD Amendment (PL20210001637) Dear Property Owner: In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code please be advised that Creighton Development Company has a zoning application with Collier County seeking approval of: Creighton Development Company has a zoning application with Collier County seeking an amendment to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to add a drive-thru to the permitted uses, case number PL20210001637, for the 3+/- acre property generally located at the northwest corner of W. Main Street (SR 29) and N. 9th Street (Map) to develop a 5,200 sf 7-Eleven gas station and convenience store and internal Taco Laredo Restaurant. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Monday, September 13 at 5:30 p.m. at Lozano’s Restaurant, 405 New Market Road East, Immokalee, FL 34142. A virtual meeting option is also available: Zoom ID# 642 423 4664 | Passcode: 593110 https://waldropengineering.zoom.us/j/6424234664?pwd=TXREWE5NQW1KOUEvRzBlY1Y4R3podz09 Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 318-6707, or fred.drovdlic@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Fred Drovdlic, AICP Planning Manager – Fort Myers 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 1NAME1NAME2NAME3NAME4NAME5NAME6FOLIOA & H INVEST OF IMMOKALEE INC PO BOX 1195LABELLE, FL 33975---000123480002ALMON, SUSAN MAYM JUMP MARY JOSEPHINE PARKERPO BOX 215SORRENTO, FL 32776---215 00122720006ALMON, SUSAN MAYM JUMP PO BOX 215SORRENTO, FL 32776---215 00122800007ALMON, SUSAN MAYM JUMP PO BOX 215SORRENTO, FL 32776---215 00122760008ANZUALDA, LAURA E119 N 9TH STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3717 00122600003ARAGON, JOSE MANUELMARIA M DELAROSA213 N 9TH STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 00122480003B J & J RENTALS LLC3751 STATE ROAD 29 NIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---9792 25583000007BIG CYPRESS HOUSING CORP PO BOX 343529FLORIDA CITY, FL 33034---529 70690000301BJ & J RENTALS LLC3751 STATE ROAD 29 NIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---9792 25582920007BLOCKER'S FURNITURE LLC 1303 NEW MARKET RD WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2253 00123520001BOONE, WILLIAM S & PATRICIA S PO BOX 5128IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---5128 00123560003BOYS & GIRLS CLUBOF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA INC 7500 DAVIS BLVDNAPLES, FL 34104---070690000107BOYS & GIRLS CLUBOF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA INC 7500 DAVIS BLVDNAPLES, FL 34104---000122360000BROWN, TERRYKATHLEEN M PRESLEYCLAUDIA M KENNEDY111 NEW MARKET RD WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3510 00122920000C A & C J BLOCKER REVOC TRUST 1650 OQUINN RDIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---9513 52650360009C A & C J BLOCKER REVOC TRUST 1650 OQUINN RDIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---9513 52650400008C A & C J BLOCKER REVOC TRUST 1650 OQUINN ROADIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 52650520001CALMO, LAZARO LORENZOPO BOX 3484IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---0 00123360009CARRILLO, CECILIO & JUANITA 1418 TANGERINE STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2112 52651000009CERVANTES, JACINTO1204 WEST ROBERTS AVEIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3720 52650600002CHIMAL, MARY ANN B216 N 9TH STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3720 52650640004COLLIER CNTYC/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101NAPLES, FL 34112---000127320003D&K COMMERCIALPROPERTIES 1 LLC1903 ROBERTS AVE WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 52650120003D&K COMMERCIALPROPERTIES 1 LLC1903 ROBERTS AVE WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 25582600000FIGUEROA, CRESENCIO MIGUEL JUANA SANTOS119 HANCOCK STREETIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 00123240006GONZALEZ, JUAN VALDEZPO BOX 446IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3761 52651040001GOODWILL INDUST OF SW FL INC 5100 TICE STFORT MYERS, FL 33905---0 00127565402GUADALUPE CENTER INC509 HOPE CIRIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 00122960002HENDRY, R BRUCE & KAREN M 711 W MAIN STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3938 25582560001IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OFCOMMERCE INC1255 N 15TH STREET #3IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 00122400009IMMOKALEE COMMUNITYREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY3299 TAMIAMI TR E STE 202NAPLES, FL 34112---574600122840009JACK QUEEN CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 990IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---990 00122520002K&B COMMERCIAL RENTALS #5 LLC1303 NEW MARKET RD WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2253 00127360005K&B COMMERCIAL RENTALS #5 LLC1303 NEW MARKET RD WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2253 25582520009K&B RESIDENTIAL RENTALS #2 LLC1303 NEW MARKET RD WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2253 52650080004K&B RESIDENTIAL RENTALS #2 LLC1303 NEW MARKET RD WIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2253 00123280008KEMP, INVESTMENTS INC95 17TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34117---330700123160005LOPEZ JR, FRANK1027 NE 37TH STOAKLAND PARK, FL 33334---2917 52650580009LOPEZ JR, FRANK1027 NE 37TH STOAKLAND PARK, FL 33334---2917 52650590002MARINO, SALLY ASAMANTHA A MOLINA117 N 9TH STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3717 00122640005MORAN, HERLINDAGENOVEVA MORENO-MORAN204 N 9TH STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3720 52650560003NAVARRO, MARGARITA115 N 9TH STIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---3717 00122560004NEBRASKA AVE CORP% B & B CASH GROCERY STORES, INCHANDY #91PO BOX 1808 TAMPA, FL 33601---180852650040002PARKER, MARY JOSEPHINEPO BOX 2134ARCADIA, FL 34265---2134 00122680007POSADA III, MARIO & LORAINE M389 JOHN JIMMIE BLVDIMMOKALEE, FL 34142---4181 52650480002SALAZAR, MARIA IPO BOX 5172IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---5172 00123040002WATSON, DANA WPO BOX 52IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---52 00123600002Notice: 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: PL20200000756 | Buffer: 500' | Site Location: 00122800007, 00122760008, 00122720006 and 00122680007POList_500_PL20200000756.xls9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 372Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 373Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 385Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. F orms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) BL (Blasting Permit) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit CU (Conditional Use) EXP (Excavation Permit) FP (Final Plat LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) PNC (Project Name Change) PPL (Plans & Plat Review) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) SDP (Site Development Plan) SDPA (SDP Amendment) SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) SIP (Site Im provement Plan) SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) SNR (Street Name Change) SNC (Street Name Change – Unplatted) T DR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) 1 SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) SDP - or AR or PL # T47, R29, S04 name not yet approved 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)n 7 ELEVEN # 104547 THE E 400 FT OF S 200 FT OF LOT 1 73248000077 918 W MAIN ST 7-Eleven 41287 (PUDA) PL20210001637, PL20190001687 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email Personally picked up Applicant Name: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED 2 Fax Email/Fax:Phone: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) 08/10/2021 73248000077 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)n 7-Eleven 41287 (PUDA) 239-318-6707 fred.drovdlic@waldropengineering.com 7-Eleven 41287 (PUDA) Folio Number: 73248000077 Name: ALMON, SUSAN MAYM JUMP Street# & Name: 918 W MAIN ST Build# / Unit#: / 1 Legal Description: 7 ELEVEN # 104547 THE E 400 FT OF S 200 FT OF LOT 1 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 providedfor the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 WARRANTY DEEDS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 PLAT AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 429Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 430Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 433Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 434Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 439Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 440Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 441Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 442Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 446Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 484Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD PL20210001637 ZONING APPROVALS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) RESOLUTION NO. 21- 116 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING A WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN FACILITIES WITH FUEL PUMPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.05.05.B OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MAIN STREET (SR 29) AND NORTH 9TH STREET, IMMOKALEE, ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 1, 7-ELEVEN #1045471 SUBDIVISION, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20190001744) WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida 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 (LDC) Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of waivers pursuant to Land Development Code section 5.05.05.B; and WHEREAS, Creighton Companies, LLC desires to establish a 7-Eleven facility with fuel pumps on the property described herein that would be located within 500 feet of an existing facility with fuel pumps; and WHEREAS, Creighton Companies, LLC seeks a waiver to allow a separation distance of 80 feet between the proposed 7-Eleven facility with fuel pumps and the existing Handy Convenience Store facility with fuel pumps; and WHEREAS, this petition is a companion item to the proposed Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD (PL20200000756) being heard by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Land Development Code section 10.02.13.B; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing with due notice made, and all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land Development Code, and the Board having considered the advisability of granting the instant waiver and all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: Petition PL20190001744, filed by Fred Drovdlic, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, on behalf of Creighton Companies, LLC, with respect to the property located at the northwest corner of Main Street (SR 29) and North 9th Street, Immokalee, Florida, and further described in 20-CPS-01975/1629577/2]5/5/2021 Page 1 of 2 7-Eleven#1045471/PL20190001744 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved for a waiver from the 500 foot minimum separation requirement between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant to LDC Section 5.05.05.B.2, with a resulting minimum separation distance of 80 feet from the nearest facility with fuel pumps, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PL20190001744 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, this 80 day of ilJNE 2021. ATTEST:,1• MIP5 , BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CRYSp*t K..MN .,, Clerk COLLIE CO TY, FLORIDA 4 By. By. Penny Taylor, airman Attest as to Cairrt]an's e uty 1 signature crl`v. Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry Assistant County Attorney V 2\ Attachments: 151 Exhibit A—Legal Description Exhibit B —Distance Separation Exhibit 20-CPS-01975/1629577/2]5/5/2021 Page 2 of 2 7-Eleven#1045471/PL20190001744 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) EXHIBIT A 30.0' II N 89'31'23" E 417.08' f_ p cn CD W LEI W. R/W LINE, N. 9TH STREET M 3.04± ACRES 0 OO N E. LINE, N.W. 1/4, SECTION 4-47- 29 P.O.B. N. R/W LINE, N. R/W LINE, STATE ROAD 29/ —\ STATE ROAD 29 W. R/W LINE, N. 9TH STREET S 89'32'34" W 1' 30.00' S 89'32'34" W 417.02' o N 00'38'56" W P.O.C. 50.00' S.E. CORNER, N.W. 1/4, SECTION 4-47-29 S. LINE, N.W. 1/4, SECTION 4-47-29 STATE ROAD 29 (100' R/W) A.K.A. W. MAIN STREET (100' R/W) DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4, RUN N 00'38'56" W, A DISTANCE OF 50. 00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4; THENCE S 89' 32'34" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO ABBREVIATIONS THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE D. &P.U.E. = DRAINAGE &NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 29 AND THE WEST RIGHT OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WAY LINE OF NORTH 9TH STREET; THENCE S 89' 32' 34" W, A DISTANCE OF MEASURED R = RECORDED 417.02 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE N 00' 39' 37" R&M = RECORDED&MEASURED W, A DISTANCE OF 317.63 FEET; THENCE N 89'31'23" E, A DISTANCE OF R/W= RIGHT OF WAY 417.08 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID NORTH 9TH vies = WATER METER C/S = CONCRETE SLAB STREET; THENCE S 00'38' 56" E, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A C/W= CONCRETE WALK DISTANCE OF 317.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A EM = ELECTRIC METER COMPUTED AREA OF 3.04 ACRES MORE OR LESS. I.R. = IRON ROD FD = FOUND C OR CL = CENTERLINE CM = CONCRETE MONUMENT I.D. = IDENTIFICATION FIP = FOUND IRON PIPE TEL = TELEPHONE UGE = UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC O.R.B. = OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING P.I.D. = PARCEL IDENTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SKETCH OF A DESCRIPTION WAS MADE UNDER MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE AND MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 5J-17.050-.052, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. FOR: H.L. BENNETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. LB #7632 HL. BENNETT, FLORIDA REG. NO. 3403 DATE NOT A SURVEY" HAL L. BENNETT FLORIDA REG. NO. 6546 HTD H. L.N & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ll) 241 YEOMANSBEN ETT AVENUE - P.O. DRAWER 2137 LABELLE, FLORIDA 33975 PH (863) 675-8882 REVISIONS SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION DWN BY: LM DATE:02/07/ 20 CHKD BY: DWG. ID: 19546LOT1DESC OF A PARCEL INCLIENT: CREIGHTON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SHEET: 1 OF 1 ROJECT NUMBER: 19546 SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 S, RANGE 29 E. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) p.,, OH, r+ IEvN AWN yr 11. 0.. 00, 5471, 41, E4n4: ADO PILFlsmoN CAW VERNON FlI0.] 4/ 0. 4 E' x„ Ibt it 1+ 110 MMVI HRANI nttali+ n 1 a I,p v 0 Z v v' z z 0c m - I v m a E m JO0 0 z o 0 x c zD z mrDwm cnrnO r V. Z m l m o 2 r 10z- IX c- im CO D iv m0 m m m D m Z 2 p 2 D m mCO u A C D 0 m- iOm12in0_, Om 0 C m _ am wo z r rn 111 Zz- oczix 0 2-- 1i< W i~ § g m o m co la mZ CO N y D mOZD- 100 S Q, 0 c O N m o v 1 m 0< y3zcnxiM 0 § oZ m < µ r Z, Drn0- Ir Z A1 1 mZ, qi 20 cn Z X . TD1 D m Om0) 1-- Im m0 > - I r2m 3m Z 70 m 0 C mODm0100 m m N N COI— 2 0 m Cr- m rZ A ti rn Z r= O Z 70 A 70 m A r.____ m wz 0 O- ID- Isf7 gm• I.Oi S I Zic o' Gzi a l ! OmD- I CmZN O I ' I m oN A 2 y CO m mO 0 co is,W 0 V co r0 mz -cn m T III mOmz- T,, 0T I — I Oc 1 m A2< 7371f0n -.__ Z D - D- I03 If, fjmT1 m A VJ D Oms0 I cnx 0z Fri-w 1 Om F I W 5 B 0 Z> 73 a z z ix p7 z I , I co 5 cn O m m c m I II m 70 w ra m I N\ n DELIVERY/ LOAD. ZONE I,.. 1. µ - 0 D o m m- 1„ z mo - 0> o' m 73 0 DD ® I I l I co O - r0 cD02 r v 7, fCaT. T( nz m0 cn 2 II: mmm n mCA m D, z ami cn E III x omZ you I 03c n aoW I lily o j1 p cn DtzJ p m DZOz mE mnnp Op c)ImIIm I m D- cn n N N m m 0 i l I H m > co cc- 4 m m z 0 O 1 i c Dy co 1 b I m0 n OO m 00 I D H To Z< o, z z0 z Acfr T-, 1 1 H a o0 00 A O Cr Zpo l III' l I I0 D_ Am I 0 I I' 73 r I NA H r fmT1 z I d1 N z Nz z z m D D 0 I r 11 I c " G H m O '' I II IICI I r\ yr Uk m 0 O 0 .._..•-.-.---_--_ -- - 1-__- cn 0 0 CD u' q cmry N. 9THSTREET T D 0Co D Z n m ( COL IERCOUNTTY a r 0-_ Z 0 OWNED& MAINTAINED) 30ln 0 I Ras r om2, D asniNaaano m ` m m cn A c CO CO v CO v D N Z Z rn ZO O A C ' D C m Z ONINOZ I m 0 O m O m T - n O m r < 0 Fri m m c v_ 0 0 0m A A m Z 0 C 0 0 per, D O 0 C' fTl Q 1 0 0 Z D O D m to a m m l Z rm RI O O 0 n 0 r2( n 0 L7 7'7. m C „ v C D Z Z 7 m- m D O z t07 D m ^ A m CD D o C EEE F- i m m D m ; 5 c D I t I I• TI I z Z) C, X Z I N m m m 1 C 41 m co Ic, c r m 0 o CO S ir m m~ w 0 0 o m o ra z m m D 2 12 m CO '-'( o i.__ a a' i N ` g ro w D 7 S - 0 n m A - o m m Tl P - 0 N 9TH STR D D D a D c m o A n ' O n n PPPPP 0.. 3W• ZAmOr o o 2 r g ism mz o g w m n n rc- Z Qf Co) o m m 0 8 I-- I g a e o ,' i w n n n n D to Z < p'. f0Y 0 e & 8 8 0 a o r 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- ORDINANCE NO. 2021- 2 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES 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 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-4) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE AREA OVERLAY AND THE MAIN STREET OVERLAY SUBDISTRICT, WELLFIELD RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONE W-3 AND W-4, AND AIRPORT OVERLAY, TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE AREA OVERLAY AND THE MAIN STREET OVERLAY SUBDISTRICT, WELLFIELD RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONE W-3 AND W-4, AND AIRPORT OVERLAY FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS IMMOKALEE 7-ELEVEN CPUD. THE PROJECT WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION INCLUDING A FOOD STORE AND CAR WASH. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MAIN STREET (SR 29) AND NORTH 9TH STREET, IMMOKALEE, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 3.04± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING FOR PARTIAL REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 94- 33; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PL20200000756) WHEREAS, Jeffrey Wright, Esq. of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes and Holt, PA and Fred Drovdlic AICP of Waldrop Engineering PA, representing Creighton Companies LLC, 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 that: 20-CPS-02013/1632029/1]148 7-Eleven Immokalee PUD Page 1 of 2 5/12/21 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from an General Commercial District (C-4) Zoning District within the Immokalee Area Overlay and the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict, Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-3 and W-4, and Airport Overlay to a Commercial Planned.Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project known as the 7-Eleven Immokalee CPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance No. 94-33 is hereby partially repealed by removing the CPUD property from said Ordinance. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by su er-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2- 2021. ATTEST: BOARD 0, TY COMM IONERS CRYSTAL I AUNZEL, CLERK COLLIER `'! . TY, FLORI By: test n to Cha!rmaisuty Clerk Penny Ta or, Chairman 7771+,re•r e only, Approved as to form and legality: FILLCI NA% t. eidi Ashton-Cicko S Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—List of Permitted Uses This ordinance fii•.ed with the Exhibit B—Development Standards Secs o c.y of S ^te's OffS Exhibit C—Master Plan ay of lt. ".' Exhibit D—Legal Description and ocknow`edger ,'r -4 that Exhibit E—List of Deviations filir: ceived is I cloy Exhibit F—List of Developer Commitments Of— 20-CPS-02013/1632029/1]148 4opcxy Clark 7-Eleven Immokalee PUD Page 2 of 2 5/12/21 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 5,650 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses shall be constructed within the project as follows: a 4,650 square foot food store and 1,000 square foot car wash. Fueling positions for a facility with fuel pumps shall be limited to 16 unleaded refueling positions and 4 diesel only commercial vehicle refueling positions — a maximum of 20 fueling positions. 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: 1. Gasoline service stations (5541), except auto services and repairs— Limited to one (1) gasoline service station for the entire CPUD, and subject to LDC Section 4.02.32 and LDC Section 5.05.05. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B.Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1.Customary accessory uses and structures. 2.Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 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. Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20200000756 Last Revised: May 18, 2021 Page 1 of 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Development of the 7-Eleven Immokalee CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the 7-Eleven Immokalee CPUD. TABLE I COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA1 30,000 SQUARE FEET N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH.' 150 FEET N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External)2 Rear 50 FEET SPS Side 50 FEET SPS SR 29 (Main Street) 50 FEET SPS N. 9th Street 50 FEET SPS MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)2 Rear 50 FEET SPS Side 50 FEET SPS MAXIMUM HEIGHT 2 Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 35 FEET/35 FEET 35 FEET/35 FEET NOTES: 1) According to LDC 5.05.05 B.1 2) According to LDC 5.05.05 D.1 SPS = Same as Principal Structure Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20200000756 Last Revised: May 18, 2021 Page 2 of 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) UU cU cU ae $ g $ j 1. r z c Q d Q Ud a -, m n : - 6 8 U R w a 0 ° cq u' m a g u 0 V;; 5 Z a , v 5 w O Q o o w H Ow. J y Z co Uh- 14¢ 0 zN o o Z Cl - w a w O O O 6 0 6 u u u a-.-, 4 L V mz w 7 m r, } a s 8 a a s a ay MJ. S Hie I- 3 w x x N w O N O N O O O W¢ w a g n CO waww w Q vl 1 0 Q W H Q 8 Q YW a a U p w j m I_ L Z d 3 a w vmD E z a a- co_ D 0 z 2 N re w 1- w rr CO a c w I- zoo Z w 9 < > 3 m LL a s a)as z Z Z cn Ca a m a a c i a a O m J UJ CURRENT USE 4: SERVK: E STATION a 03NI71NIvW 8 03NMO ' to Z 0 A1N1lO0 i311100) I-- ''- S Z Q J J M4i A90 NUS IX3 LL- w ° r Q W o u t La 13381SH16 N "' m " 6 w = a r [ uolnt - - 2:' "'_ ,. - 0 Z 0 p d 1 w w- 1 I a, a "" O ( Na 1 O0Q O m z ww , LtiwE r f73 1. w o Z ra a of XOw No i • O Z f - H oQQ} I- Q dN w dIX CO' n. Lij 0 IliZ j W a) F- W O m M o a LL I Uw i p z IIIm I- I o Y Up On 13ozQ ~ d o m . 0 04 cA 41. b E33 wH0ww03m U YCs p • Q CC Z CO x ", i. Owzauc` YNi O Z cc. cia It 1.- U zaJuw 1 U W o Q d a + COI- w 3NOz' OVOiva3nn30 a NI i N M Ct Ili I wtt I- g z p z V co . w wwZ F m Q2u o9 I' ' o m O w Q co L 4 z r w pSYp Q O tIA( O,.. EL) O w Z< CI ri LL a rzZLL In w- 1 O v w( n EL j_ 1 Z S Q uj CO cs) co # r z z 4w1xzO a Z t ° W US4La> LLcc ' O W W LIJ r xFW¢ O OO w w I II- z 40- 3w w O Z F- 0: Q' 3I- co 0W 0W 0 00 N J wa w a- z r- o < zz N u Zp a g nz ¢ rO J W 4. o 4r- F w Q ^ a wp z2auu.. ii d a a w t 0 m I ', M0c) g u. cn u OOmz i: o zp w0, Z w I pz - W© 4W`- 5 O zp o m z W w o 1_ o_omu. odcn z z > w b oa I R/ f1 z A. O z U a j i 2 W z -- UG 1r i 1 @_ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7- EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD LOT 1 OF THE 7-ELEVEN #1045471 SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 68 PAGES 65- 66 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20200000756 Last Revised: May 18, 2021 Page 4 of 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD 1. Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.32 B.2. — Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee—Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD), which requires all properties within the Main Street Overlay subdistrict, having frontage on Main Street, First Street or Ninth Street, to locate all parking areas in the rear yard and/or in side yards; instead allow the parking to be located in front of the building, which faces W. Main Street. Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20200000756 Last Revised: May 18, 2021 Page 5 of 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD 1. PURPOSE The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. 2. 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 Creighton Companies, LLC. 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. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 157+/- 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. B. Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the parcel to the west to allow access consistent with the conceptual PUD Master Plan. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross-access easement, or an access easement for public use without responsibility of maintenance by Collier County, will be provided at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The interconnections shall remain open to the public. Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20200000756 Last Revised. May 18, 2021 Page 6 of 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 4. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The project does not contain native vegetation; however, the CPUD will provide 30% open space as required by the LDC, or a minimum of 0.91 acres of open space will be provided. B. A tree survey of the property will be needed at the SDP or PPL review to evaluate if any trees on site meet the requirements of LDC 3.05.07 A.2. C. A black bear management plan will need to be included at SDP or PPL review. 5. POLLUTION CONTROL A. All dry detention areas must be completed with the bottom of the detention area set three feet above the seasonal high groundwater table elevation. If an alternative stormwater management system is proposed during SDP additional or alternative requirements may be necessary. B. All stormwater inlets must include the installation and maintenance of a hooded outfall to prevent petroleum hydrocarbons from entering the stormwater management system. C. Any reportable discharge as defined in chapter 62-780, FAC., shall be reported to the State Watch Office or FDEP Office of Emergency Response, and Collier County Pollution Control, no later than 24 hours after occurrence, and Emergency Response Actions as outlined in chapter 62-780, FAC. must commence within 24 hours of any reportable discharge. D. The proposed onsite Car Wash will be required to utilize a total recycle system and abide by all requirements and prohibitions listed in chapter 62-660. 803 FAC. Equipment must be maintained per manufacturer specification, and all waste disposal records must be retained onsite for 2 years and made available for review during annual inspection. 6. PUBLIC UTILITIES A. The developer shall connect to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District potable water system at locations determined by the Immokalee Water and Sewer District when capacity is available. B. The project shall connect to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District wastewater collection and conveyance system at locations determined by Immokalee Water and Sewer District when capacity is available. C. The project shall connect to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District Irrigation Quality water system at locations determined by Immokalee Water and Sewer District when capacity is available. 7. MISCELLANEOUS A. Pursuant to Section 120.022(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. Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20200000756 Last Revised: May 18, 2021 Page 7 of 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. C. Mural painting is permitted on the building facade with frontage on N. 9th Street subject to LDC Section 2.03.07.G.7.e.xx. D. The facility will provide the necessary infrastructure and pre-wiring for generator service in case of emergencies, as required by LDC Section 5.05.05.1. Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD PL20200000756 Last Revised: May 18, 2021 Page 8 of 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 410 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RON DESANTIS LAUREL M.LEE Governor Secretary of State June 15, 2021 Ms. Teresa Cannon, BMR Senior Clerk II Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court Comptroller of Collier County 3329 Tamiami Trail E, Suite #401 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Ms. Cannon: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 2021-22, which was filed in this office on June 15, 2021. Sincerely, Anya Grosenbaugh Program Administrator AG/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Att B - Applicants Backup Material CCPC_comp (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Public Notice Sign Posting (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Public Notice Sign Posting (21084 : PL20210001637 - Immokalee 7-Eleven CPUD Amendment)