Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/07/2023 (Draft) TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 7, 2023 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 3:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Paul Shea Amy Lockhart, 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 Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the first session, the afternoon session, of our meeting of December 7, 2023. Excuse me. I'm a little tongue-tied this morning [sic]. I want to ask everyone first to please join me for a moment of silent reflection in remembrance of those members of the United States Military who lost their lives on this day in history on December 7, 1941. (A moment of silence was observed.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, everyone. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the absence of our secretary, I will endeavor to call the roll, if I can get untongue-tied. Ms. Lockhart? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is absent. Mr. Vernon, I am told, will be here but is not here quite yet; should be here in a matter of minutes. Secretary Shea is absent. Mr. Schumacher? COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm here. Vice Chairman Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We have a quorum of five, and I believe it will soon be a quorum of six. All absences -- I guess we're now just talking about Mr. Shea; the absence has been excused. Let's see. Planning Commission -- okay. Let's talk about future absences. Will anyone who is present here not be able to be here this evening, my first question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then we will continue to have a quorum. That's a good thing. Our next meeting -- well, our second December meeting will be canceled. That would have been on December 21. It's been canceled, and so this is actually our last meeting of the calendar year 2023. Our next meeting will be on January 4 of 2024. Does anyone know if he won't be able to attend that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Same question for our second meeting next month, January 18, 2024. Any absences known at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Good. Approval of the minutes. Let's see, we have two meetings' minutes in front of us today for action, those of our November 7 and our November 16, 2023, meeting. Unless there's a need to vote on them separately on account of any corrections, changes, or additions, I'd entertain a motion to approve both sets of minutes jointly, and by that I mean those of November 2nd and those for November 16. Is there a motion? COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, all those in favor of approving both sets of minutes, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They pass unanimously. Thank you very much. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not meet since the last Planning Commission meeting, so there is no recap. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***Public hearing, our only hearing item for this first session comes to us as companions. They are PL20220001010, which is the Matson at Vanderbilt Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and PL20220001011, the Matson at Vanderbilt Residential PUDZ. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting, please, with Mr. Schumacher. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff material and site visit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In my case, public materials, meetings with staff, communications with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about both petitions. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I had access to the staff material as well as a staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Reviewed staff material and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. With that, Mr. Yovanovich, you may proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the applicant. With me today I have Andy Bolig, who's with Roers. They will hopefully acquire the property and develop the property. David Stevens is here; he represents the current property. Mr. Arnold is our professional planner on the project; Mike Delate is our professional engineer; and Mr. Banks is our transportation consultant. What I'm going to do is, like I typically do, is I'm going to do a brief overview of the proposed changes to the Growth Management Plan and the PUD, update you on some conversations we've had with staff since the staff report was published, and then I'll have Mr. Arnold take you through the compatibility and master plan analysis. On the visualizer is the location of the property. It's both a horse stable and a veterinary clinic, and those are both in between two independent living facility projects that are constructed on Vanderbilt Beach Road. This is a closer-up image of the project. The two projects on the right and the left, which would be the east and the west of this property, not only do they have a floor area ratio limitation, but in their specific PUDs, they also have a unit count limitation. The unit count limitation on the project to the west is 130 units on 9.18 acres that is right around 14 units per acre that was approved, and then the project on the east is 7.8 acres. It had a unit limitation of 200 units, which is a density of 25 units per acre. I think that additional information is important when considering what is around us and the intensity of what is around us as well as the general information you got for the much larger project's overall density. Our project is 5.88 acres. It's in the urban area. And we're proposing to create a subdistrict for this particular piece of property for the reason that we are going to have an affordable housing project as part of this project. And initially we had requested 11.3 units per acre -- I'm sorry -- 11.3 percent of the units be capped at the 80 percent and below threshold and 11.3 percent of the units capped at the 100 percent and below threshold. Staff had made some recommendations. One was to go to 30 percent of the units income restricted, basically 15 percent at the 80 percent and below and 15 percent at the 100 percent and below. And then they also wanted some additional income-restricted units to address our request in the Growth Management Plan to reduce the overall open-space requirement from 60 percent to 40 percent. We have worked with our client. They've done the math. They can agree to the first part of that request, which is to increase the overall commitment to affordable housing to the 30 percent, which is the 15 percent at the 80 percent and below and 15 percent at the 100 percent and below but cannot commit to increasing -- more units to go to the 34 percent. And I think that 34 percent number came about because of the Ascend project, and the Ascend project, the developer was able to go to the 34 percent. (Commissioner Vernon is now present in the boardroom.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Incidentally, the extra units were at the 120 percent and below category for that project because, under the Live Local Act, if you got to more than 70 units in your project, there are ad valorem tax benefits associated with those additional units, so the math worked that they could increase the development or the commitment to income-restricted housing in that particular project. We can never get to more than 70 units and have an economically viable project, so we -- sir? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to interrupt you for a moment just so the record shows that Commissioner Vernon has arrived. Sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And my apologies to my colleagues and everybody for being late. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're delighted you're here. MR. YOVANOVICH: So for obvious economic reasons, we cannot agree to go to the 34 percent income-restricted units, and Mr. Arnold and, I believe, Mr. Bosi will address the size of this project and the reason why going to 60 percent open space doesn't really make sense on infill projects. And in this particular case, if we wanted to get to the 60 percent, we'd have to narrow the footprint, go taller, which is out of -- is inconsistent with what's around us but also makes it cost prohibitive because once you get, basically, above four floors, it becomes very, very expensive to build those units. So we think that we have provided sufficient rationale for the deviation that we're now going to request as part of the PUD and not request, as staff has requested us, to remove it from the Growth Management Plan amendment. We'll just put it as a deviation request in the PUD. So we're agreeing to relocate the deviation in the PUD, and we're agreeing to the 30 percent income restriction. So that will result in, out of the 150 units we're asking for, 45 of those units will be income restricted. This is just the existing Future Land Use Element map that shows you the current urban designation on the property. Basically, diagonally from us is -- it's showing up -- it's an apartment complex. This is ShadowWood -- Sandalwood, I'm sorry. Thank you, Wayne -- and Bradford Square that I had mentioned a moment ago. On this slide, which I'll just highlight what we changed, this is the subdistrict language. We changed -- as you can see, we went to 15 percent, 15 percent below the 80 percent and 15 percent below the 100, and went to 30 percent. So those are the changes to the subdistrict language that was before you, and you can see we removed the reference to 40 percent open space as part of this project. We've -- just for informational purposes, I don't think there's any question that there's a need for affordable housing in Collier County. This is a 10-mile radius from where the property is located and the different entities and employment opportunities within that 10-mile radius. It's not every business, but it's hotels, schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, EMS stations, the essential service personnel that, you know, we've been continuing to try to provide safe, decent residences that are affordable to those various professions in our county. So I think we've met our burden for purposes of justifying the Growth Management amendment. I think there's sufficient data and analysis for our request, and then we've -- Mr. Arnold will take you through the master plan and other aspects regarding the PUD that we're proposing, and how we fit in nicely with the neighbors. Unless you have questions of me, I'll have Mr. Arnold come up, and then we'll be done with our brief presentation and then answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to have a few questions, but I'm going to hold them until after I hear from staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates, certified planner. And where Rich left off, I think I'll walk you through our proposed conceptual plan and then talk a little bit more about density compatibility and the open-space deviation that had been in question. So our proposed master plan, our primary access and only access is on Vanderbilt Beach Road. We've centered that on the site trying to work with the county to fit in a turn lane that will be required. One of the things with Sandalwood that you can see, we've shown a potential intersection with the Sandalwood entrance. It just is something that they had proposed on their zone plan. They provided a sub-out on their Site Development Plan. So we're, likewise, showing a potential connection with them. I don't know that it has a great deal of purpose in this corridor, but at least we're meeting your Comprehensive Plan criteria to try to create this interconnectivity. The features of the site, we tried to orient the building to the middle of the site. You can see it's an A-shaped -- H-shaped building. The amenities are tucked into the courtyard to the rear of the site back here. Our nearest neighbor is the -- let me go back a slide to an aerial photograph just so we can talk to it. So our neighbor to the north is Tiburon Golf Club. We held our neighborhood information meeting, and nobody from Tiburon arrived. But we were prepared -- and I'll talk about it in a little bit with the open-space deviation. But we've proposed an enhanced buffer along that property line. It was a sensitive issue for both Sandalwood and the Bradford Square projects that Rich and I worked on at the time. So as Rich said, we're going from, you know, what was a defunct horse stable and a veterinary clinic to a proposed 150-unit multifamily apartment complex. The other features of the site, you know, we're proposing surface parking here. One of the other more expensive alternatives is, obviously, to put parking underneath the building, which could help the open-space standard, but it drives up your costs considerably, making some of the opportunity to provide affordable units less affordable, and that's -- that has to be a consideration, and I'll talk about that in a moment. So the open-space deviation started out as an open-space standard we put in the Growth Management Plan language, and in speaking with staff last week after the staff report was issued, they felt that it made more sense to create this as a deviation for the PUD. Our logic was, let's tie it into the subdistrict because the subdistrict is so unique; it's only this project. One can argue that I know we don't set precedence with each PUD, but somebody else would come along and try and say, well, that PUD got an open-space reduction. We preferred that it was tied to the Growth Management Plan amendment, but we're happy to include it as a deviation with the zoning and remove it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. If I may, I would just like to note that Deviation No. 2 noted on your master plan now, and this is newly added, and it has not been reviewed by legal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. In your view, should we proceed, or what action should we take since it hasn't been? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just with a quick eyeball of the text, it looks like it's correct, but I'll just have to verify the cites and the language after -- you know, later. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is that something that you want to try to do during a break or after adjournment? How do you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. I can check it on a break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: So I'm showing you a more -- another conceptual rendering, but we've colored in the areas that are going to be water management. The buffer areas, the landscape islands, et cetera, to show that there is substantial green space on the site. But the 40 percent standard -- just so you know, your code is very unique. There's a 60 percent standard in two places in your code. One, it says, every residential PUD -- every residential PUD has to have 60 percent usable open space, and then there's another standard provision for all zoning that says, all residential zoning has to have a 60 percent open-space standard. And that hasn't been an issue, as we've had the large tracts of land to develop. But as we look at this, and Rich and I have looked at other sites that people have looked at that are commercial sites today that they would qualify for Live Local, under staff's interpretation of the statute, those commercial sites would still have to make a 60 percent open-space number work. And I can assure you that you're probably not going to get a 2-acre infill site and provide 60 percent open space and get any type of meaningful structure on that to support affordable housing. So I think until we address this affordable housing issue as well as the open-space use, we're not going to be successful in helping that Live Local Act be a successful attempt to get more affordable housing. So this isn't just our issue. I think Rich and I are also working on a -- with a major employer here in town who's buying a condominium building and trying to convert it for their own corporate housing. It won't come to you as an affordable housing project per se, but it will be for their corporate housing. They can make a 40 percent open-space number work. They cannot make a 60 percent open-space number work on this site as an infill site. So we think it's important, and I think the conversations I've had with Mr. Bosi will confirm that this is a really tough standard. And I know that Collier County likes to stand out from its neighbors for a lot of different reasons. But when you go to Sarasota County, that's also a nice comparison to what we have here. Their open-space standard's 30 percent. When you go to Lee County, City of Bonita, their numbers are 40 percent for residential projects. So I think what we're asking for isn't out of the realm of what our neighbors are doing and, in fact, it's the number that allows this project to work without adding two floors and putting underbuilding parking. And, okay, you can say, easy enough, just go build a six-story building. But the reality is I've got a four-story building at Sandalwood Village next door, and I've got three-story buildings across the street. It just doesn't seem to make sense to try to put a 75-foot-tall-plus building in this location when we can do this and ask for a deviation that we think is meaningful and responsive to the site and still deliver 30 percent of our units as affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wayne, I have a question. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This represents a deviation, then? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct; it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So maybe Mike's going to have to answer this or not, but I'm concerned. From the standpoint of permeable surface, water runoff, those kind of things, I would assume that's all been -- being taken into consideration that we won't be dealing -- or you're going to be dealing with the capability to deal with all the water runoff or collection from this site both through the impervious surface and site drainage systems; that we're not going to be placing water on other property, then? MR. ARNOLD: You're correct, Mr. Schmitt. Mike Delate has been working with our other staff engineers and county staff. They've actually submitted a site plan for this just to at least try to advance the process, because this takes so long to get through it. So it's not uncommon that we'll try to play catch-up with part of this. It's certainly at-risk money from our clients, but that's the nature of the game. But, yes, Mike has designed it. We're working with the Water Management District. We've had an RAI. They've asked for some minor things unrelated to the capacity of the site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, then, can Mike put -- on the record just state that the calculations have been performed and the site, as shown here, is more than adequate to meet the requirements? MR. DELATE: Yes. For the record, I'm Mike Delate, engineer of Grady Minor. And as you indicated, the site has been designed to handle the runoff from this increased impervious area, and we're through -- trying to close out our Water Management District permitting right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What specific additional actions have you taken? MR. DELATE: Yes. We've added underground chambers for stormwater attenuation and treatment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I'm sure showing up late is the reason I don't know this, but how much open space is there in this project? MR. ARNOLD: It's right at the 40 percent number we're requesting. And like I said, this is -- it's one of those standards -- and I think it's just one of those things that has not been an issue but, as I mentioned, as we're looking at more and more of these infill sites -- and the interesting thing is as, an ag site, there's no open-space requirement. As a commercial site, it's a 30 percent open-space number. As a mixed-use site, it's a 30 percent number, but entirely residential is 60 percent. So as I said, not an issue when you're dealing with larger tracts of land. Probably -- when you get to the 10-acre threshold, it probably becomes something doable at the 60 percent, but less -- and even your commercial standards recognize sites that are smaller, so they have a graded scale where there's no open-space standard for small commercial lots and a 30 percent for larger lots. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand your point of view, and it's something that I'm going to want to ask for more detail from staff on when it's staff's turn. Please continue. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. So this was a conceptual landscape rendering we prepared for our northern buffer along the Tiburon Golf Club, and this goes -- it's part of our deviation request to enhance this buffer with more vegetation. It seemed like the most logical place to place it. I know that we didn't hear from Tiburon as part of our neighborhood information process, and I don't think staff received any correspondence from them, but Rich and I did deal with them for the other projects that flank our east and west boundaries, and that was an issue for their playability, just not wanting to see structures and things like that. So we thought this was the best bang for the buck to try to create a much enhanced buffer in that -- in that location. One of the other things, too, I would just point out as an overall standard, it's not directly related to the deviation, but we are providing for a future CAT bus stop easement in our site. That was a request from staff, and we've obliged that request. So we'll provide an easement. So that when they expect the CAT bus service to be expanded along this corridor when the Vanderbilt extension is completed, that they will have an opportunity to locate a shelter at this location, which could serve the two senior independent housing projects as well as this apartment complex, which we think makes obvious sense. So just some of the renderings. Roers is a company that's been doing development work around the country. They're in several Florida markets at the moment. They're looking at three projects here in Collier County. And you'll just get an idea for -- you know, what they do is primarily market-rate housing but, obviously, here we would make our project have the 30 percent open-space number. Rich went through the numbers with you at 80 percent and 100 percent. And I think Rich, as he indicated -- you know, the 34 percent threshold, I think, was a reaction to another project without all the facts being aligned to be the same circumstances. So in that particular case, that was a voluntary give by the applicant, and maybe they needed it. I think -- we had representatives from the apartment complex across the street at our neighborhood meeting. It looks like they may be present today. But I don't think we have any public opposition to the project that I'm aware of. So I think we have a good project. We've delivered one, as Rich mentioned. The density analysis -- so the two projects on either side of us were considered to be age 55 and over independent senior housing, which is a form of group housing because it's age restricted, but they're rental apartments for those age groups. And for those age groups, the Sandalwood Village does not have 30 percent open space. It was deemed to be a more commercial type use, and I think Bradford Square had a preserve area, so their open-space number probably is close to 60 percent because of that preservation area. And on this particular site, we have no preserve because the site was cleared for a riding stable for the last 30-plus years and a pet resort. So we think the circumstances warrant where we are. And I'll let Mike make their presentation for staff, obviously, and talk to you about why they're willing to support the deviation we're asking for as well as the 30 percent, now that we've had a chance to talk to them. And I think it just said -- unfortunately, timing-wise with Thanksgiving holiday, it cut reviews a little bit short in getting staff reports out to you, because ideally we'd like to have come to you with, I think, a more positive staff report that captured this being on the same page with staff. So hopefully you-all can agree with our request and support the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling at this time. Without objection, I'd like to get right to staff, because I've got a number of questions since it appears as though there may some changes in the offing to staff's recommendation. I want to get those on the record so that we can think about them and talk about them. MS. EASTLEY: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners. Kathy Eastley, one of your Planner IIIs in Comprehensive Planning. Staff did do a thorough review and analysis of the project that was contained in the staff report, and since that time we have had some compromise from the agents on the provision of the 30 percent open space. We have found that to be sufficient to support the density that they're requesting. And with the removal of the open space from the Growth Management Plan and the request for the deviation, I think we can support the reduction in the open space. There is some precedent for that. In the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, there's an allowance for a 20 percent reduction in the open space with the provision of affordable housing. So I think that, along with the infill parcel characteristics, it is appropriate to allow for that reduction. I do have a presentation, but I don't think that it's necessary at this point since we have come to agreement on the issues, but I am available for any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just to clarify -- and perhaps it is clear to everyone -- when we received this, we had a recommendation of disapproval from staff based upon two things: Primarily, first of all, what was it, 22.6 percent of affordable housing in exchange for density of 25.5 dwelling units per acre, and then it was indicated in the staff report with respect to that point of disapproval that if they came up with 30, you could go with the 25.5 dwelling units per acre. So that part has been satisfied. Then the other part, staff was saying if they want to reduce the open space, the open usable space, that staff was recommending 34 percent of affordable housing, and it sounds to me as though you're conceding that point. MS. EASTLEY: The reason why we were requesting the additional affordable housing for the reduction in the open space was as a commensurate public benefit for the reduction. I think that because we do have precedent and because of the explanation of the infill characteristics of the property and the fact that the 34 percent affordable housing isn't viable in this project, that we do think that that's probably not required at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So what you're saying is, is that staff is conceding the point and withdrawing its recommendation of disapproval not based upon the fact that it's going out of the GMP and into PUD, but based upon your revisitation of the issues and the infill concept and the necessity that would arise for a higher building? MS. EASTLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. No one's signaling at this point. Anybody want to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like not. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to hear from you guys the -- why you prefer the PUD instead of the GMP. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just because the open-space requirement is a requirement that is housed within the LDC, not the GMP. The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is one of the unique districts that actually has open-space requirements contained in the GMP. The rest of the open-space requirements are established in the LDC. And because of that we thought the deviation process is the more appropriate place because that deals with deviations from the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But it didn't have anything to do with precedent or anything like that? MR. BOSI: No, nothing -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just where you think it belongs? MR. BOSI: -- with a precedent. And what I would say -- and this is overall commentary, and I've said this for a number of years, that -- and we've done some movement on it, but we have a greenfield development Land Development Code based upon wide open spaces. Well, that reality is shrinking within our urbanized area. And as the applicant has said -- and if you remember during the GMP housing amendments that were on your most recent -- I think November 1st agenda, we had a component where we were talking about the strategic opportunity sites, and we identified 10 acres or more of parcels within the urbanized area, and there wasn't more than 12. So it goes to show you what's left in the urbanized area. And what's left in the urbanized area is infill development, and infill development has a different approach than what greenfield development is. And one of the -- where we've made some improvements upon that, we've done a Site Development Plan with deviations. It's a process -- it can go to the HEX, and you can seek modifications to your traditional urban development standards based upon the concept that infill development has unique criteria and obstacles that it has to overcome. So we've made some strides in improving our Land Development Code, recognizing we're transitioning from greenfield development to infill development, but we need to take some more steps to recognize that, and the open-space requirements, I think, as it was pretty adequately described by Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich, of 60 percent. And where that 60 percent came -- Richard Henderlong, who you'll hear from tonight related to the food truck park amendment, did a little research back, and it really goes back to the Urban residential four-units-per-acre allocation, and four-units-per-acre allocation for a residential development, 60 percent, at that time was what was -- they were deemed was appropriate. It was going to give enough space and provide for the environment that the county was looking to promote. And I don't disagree. And four units per acre fits within there relatively easily, and I think the applicants have even said, if you can get over 10 acres, you can squeeze a residential project in at 60 percent. But when you really do -- when you get below that 10 acres, it starts to become compromised. And then when you're trying to provide for higher density residential for infill -- or for affordable income-restricted units, it even places a greater challenge. And it's -- either you go out or you go up. And with the 40 percent reduction, it at least allows them to go out a little bit more so they don't have to go up and exceed the adjoining properties, because right now they're basically compatible at the 60-foot height limitation with their two properties to the east and to the west. So all those reasons are the reasons why staff eventually arrived upon the conclusion that with 30 percent we think it's a good project. We think it has benefit, and we think it has -- really does have compatibility. You've got two ALFs that sit to the east and the west, you've got a golf course to the back that's going to be enhanced with an enhanced landscape buffer, a six-lane divided highway to the south with an apartment complex on the corner of Livingston. And so for all those reasons, we think this is a project that staff can most certainly get behind, and that's sort of the reason how we got to the agreement with the applicant. And it -- we should have maybe had a little bit more conversation with the applicant before we finalized our staff report so what came to you could have been the compromise, but we've -- we've reserved the right to become smarter, so next time we will have that a little bit more -- a little bit more earlier in the process so we're not bringing something in and then changing it on the way, so we do apologize for that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, thank you, Mike. And my apologies to the Chairman. I forgot to push my button before I started talking, so I'll try and push my button in the future. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What's the trip count on this for traffic? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Eighty-five, I think. MR. BOSI: I believe it is 85. I think Lorraine Lantz was nodding yes, 85. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It's 85. So on that -- on that road, according to the 2023 AUIR, Airport to Livingston, which is currently rated a D, had a remaining cap of 226. So we've got 80 -- and I know we don't count things that aren't built yet, off our last conversation. Thank you for that. But I'm still looking forward. Because if we take Ascend of Naples, which I think was something like 120, plus this 85, we're pretty much at the cap limit for this section of road. So is that when our improvements kick in? I heard about getting an easement for a bus stop for that to help alleviate some of that. MS. LANTZ: Yeah. So Lorraine Lantz, Collier County Transportation Planning. So this problem -- when we did our evaluation, when they came in, they had to conform with the AUIR at the time. The project does not trip -- the trip bank trips it, but this project does not trip it. So they are not on the hook. We asked them for -- instead of a turn lane, we asked them for the right-of-way for a Collier Area Transit bus shelter and stop, because we are envisioning eventually VBR will be expanded, and there might be a need for additional Collier Area Transit facilities along that corridor to help with the -- COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Congestion. MS. LANTZ: -- congestion, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling. Anything else from staff? MR. BOSI: Nothing other -- I mean, I do have an updated status that -- Mr. Giblin put together an update to the affordable housing numbers in terms of cost-burdened houses and the number of individuals that come to the county on a daily basis for work and just to kind of highlight the need for additional affordable housing. But I will defer to the Planning Commission. I could email you that and -- but it does show that there is a tremendous -- continues to be a tremendous amount of need for not only housing affordability but housing choices. And one of the other things that I was going to bring -- and if you can remember as part of your AUIR, we tracked the COs of the residential -- the residential dwelling units from 2006 to 2023. We issued about 45,000 COs. Two-thirds of those are single-family -- for single-family houses; a third of them were for multifamily apartments and condominiums. We think in the overall health of the community, the infill opportunities that we have, we're not going to see your traditional single-family subdivisions being proposed. I think what you're going to see is a continuation of multifamily, whether it be condo or whether it be through apartments, to provide for a little bit more housing choice and variety. The one slide that I think that was one of the most important that the applicants provided -- and I appreciated it -- was the schools, the Sheriff's stations, the fire stations, the EMS stations, the employments. And I think where this project is located, it's almost the center of distribution within the urbanized area. And we know there's employment opportunities and needs all throughout that, so we think this location has some real advantages in terms of an even distribution in terms of wherever those job opportunities or goods and services may be, that this is in real close proximity. So with all those reasons, we're supporting the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we up here are keenly aware of the shortage of affordable housing, so it wouldn't be necessary. If I'm wrong, Commissioners, please let me know. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just a comment. And we're going to vote for both of these separately, of course. Are we going to hear a presentation on the PUD prior to voting or -- MR. BOSI: And for the PUD, it's similar -- staff's position is similar to what -- from the GMP side. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I just wanted to make a statement from the standpoint -- and Cormac -- and I go way back with the affordable housing issues when -- of course, when I was with the staff and he was with affordable housing. And the mantra for years was density. The way to solve the problem in this county was density, but when you begin to talk 30 units an acre, people -- their hair stood up, and -- but, frankly, from an affordability standpoint, the cost of construction, the cost of land, in order to make it a viable project, there has to be density. And the density here, though it sounds tremendous, it's what's needed to provide the product that they're providing. And so I just wanted to put that statement on the record, because it's been, at least my position for years, that the affordable housing issue -- to solve the affordable housing issue is -- the developer has to have the ability to provide density. And I know there's -- there's units -- 30 units an acre, 35 units an acre some places. When you go to Atlanta, when you go to Washington, D.C., or other places, you can have absolutely superb housing, not very big units, but to meet the requirements for affordable housing, and I just wanted to put that on the record. So based on that, I am going to support both petitions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I'm going to ask Mr. Yovanovich to come back up to relate a conversation that we had by telephone with respect to essential services personnel. And this -- my position on this has evolved somewhat. We had a -- we had a developer earlier on who was willing to provide notifications to the various classifications of essential services personnel each time there was vacancy turnover. But after further thought, it seemed to me perhaps -- recognizing that in addition to essential services personnel, there are other wage earners -- other employees who need a place to reside in Collier County for that to work, and if we could only provide notice to the essential services categories for the initial -- right after the initial CO, then by word of mouth the word would get out to the other employers in that same category, and I'm more or less satisfied with that. Mr. Yovanovich, would you outline what we talked about? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. What we talked about was incorporating into this PUD the same notification requirements and the same 90-day period before CO is issued for providing notification to the various essential service personnel employers of the availability of units, and should at the end of that 90-day period there be units that were not taken up by those types of professions, then anybody who met the income thresholds could reside in those units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You showed me some language. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I'm going to put that on the visualizer now. This is the exact language that was approved as part of the golf course -- the hotel with a golf course renovation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Go ahead and do that. I just -- I want to be sure that however many days of notice is provided to the essential services, that that period of time starts to run before the notice goes out generally on the availability. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And that's what this language says. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We give them the first opportunity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. All right. Let's have a look at it. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's really No. 4 that you want to focus on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that language is new and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not in this PUD, but it is in a PUD that you have all approved in the past. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We were satisfied with it on the golf course. I'm satisfied with this language. I want to be sure that the Planning Commission is. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this something that we can suggest to -- this language here that's been eloquently written out -- that we can suggest to other folks that come to us with affordable housing units, almost -- I don't want to say use it as a standard, because every project that comes to us has to stand on its own merits, I recognize that -- but maybe something that we suggest they try to incorporate. Because this is written so well, and we have reviewed it previously. Just a thought for the Board and/or other developers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Speaking on behalf of myself, I'm going to ask for it in each applicable case but, you know, any applicant who comes before us has a cogent argument why this is burdensome, we're going to listen to that, and we'll act accordingly. But since it's a notice that would go out before their units are even completed, it shouldn't result in a delay in getting the units rented. Mr. Bosi, did you want to speak? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. Again, I would say Mr. Giblin is being added to every one of our reviews, our PUD reviews or reviews when we have an affordable housing proposal. I think we will coordinate with Mr. Giblin that this will be some standard language that we're going to suggest to the applicants that they include within it based upon the preference that the Planning Commission has expressed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I'll say, without objection -- we give people a chance to object -- that this would appear to be the unanimous consensus of the Planning Commission. Mr. Giblin. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Perry did indicate that he is working with the affordable housing department, and there are some issues with implementation. They did have some extra language added to the Ascend project which makes it more enforceable or more workable. Did you want to comment on that? MR. PERRY: As you all know, the Ascend project was heavily vetted with Mr. Yovanovich as well as staff, and there is at least, I think, a good framework of repeating heavily vetted ESP notification language. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So is the County Attorney satisfied with this language for this project? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The language that's -- you mean the language that's before you right here? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, No. 4. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Based on my conversation -- like, two-second conversation with Mr. Perry, the issue is the 30 days isn't sufficient, so with Ascend they did, like, a waiting list so people were prequalified so there was time for them to make that 30-day window. MR. PERRY: Imagine, for example, you live somewhere and you get a -- the applicant reaches out and says, hey, for 30 days, this is available. You live somewhere. So right then the clock starts. You have 30 days. You have to go in. You have to prequalify. You have to -- there's paperwork and things you have to do as well as get rid of where you live now, et cetera. And so -- and this isn't meant to alter the 30 days. It's just with Ascend we had a prequalification so that would alleviate -- some of the question is, what good is dropping everything in your life to then find out that you don't qualify and just allow for people to have a better opportunity to get into these units? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll recall, the Ascend project had the same restriction for rerenting units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I do; I do recall that. MR. YOVANOVICH: This one is patterned after the Quality Inn redo that didn't have a preference for the second, third, fourth time a unit was rented because, as that developer pointed out and this developer pointed out, that makes it very difficult for getting lender support when -- in this case it's easy because you know you've got rented up, you know, at the initial time. Keeping units off the market to find qualified -- not income but qualified professional jobs was an issue and, therefore, I think the Chairman recognized that, you know, once people know where these projects are, you don't need to continue to advertise these units when they become available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that is where I am. That is exactly where I am. And, you know, the 30-day lead time, even though there are steps that have to be taken, the same steps would have to be taken by nonessential personnel. They've got to get out of their current lease and things of that nature. So as long as -- I think 30 days is reasonable, but there -- obviously, there are going to be hurdles for anybody who needs to either change -- change their landlords or somehow another respect -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- there is no 30-day requirement in this project. There's a 90-day -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ninety days, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- prior to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- initial leasing of the unit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I misspoke. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no -- there's no further requirement to give priority to ESP beyond the initial renting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I misspoke. I think that's adequate. We've got two commissioners lit up. Let's see what they have to say. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I guess I want to go back to make sure we have our terms defined and where those definitions come from. So I see in front of us we have a definition for essential services personnel, and I just want to -- you know, is that coming from, you know, state? County? What is the source for that? Or are we making it up today for this action, or is there some -- you know, what is the county's definition of ESP? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the county -- I'll let Cormac answer that because it's way broader than this. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so if it's way broader than this, is the way-broader-than-this definition the one we really mean to incorporate here or -- you know, are we pointing to that without specifying it or, by using the term "ESP," does it incorporate this official definition? MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, housing policy and economic development director, for the record. ESP is a term defined in state statute as well as in our local housing assistance plan, and each county can develop its own definition of which occupations qualify as ESP. Again, that's done in our local housing assistance plan. I don't have it in front of me, but I can tell you it's everything listed here plus construction trades, medical, medical professionals, teachers, firemen, Sheriff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Would it include teachers and professors in private institutions as well? MR. GIBLIN: It does, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And -- MR. GIBLIN: The list that is here, it would be difficult to include as a -- as a condition in a PUD to send notice to every single ESP employer, but these are the broadest ones and the biggest ones in the county. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So, for instance, you know, this is located where, this project, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's on -- I'm sorry -- Vanderbilt Beach Road just east of Livingston. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So when you're approaching your 90 days, you're now -- are we saying that you're obligated to go ahead and give notice to certain people or no? MR. YOVANOVICH: This says 90 days prior to our anticipating a CO we're going to provide that notice. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: To whom? MR. YOVANOVICH: To these various -- we're going to provide -- if you look at C, it's going to be to Collier County Community and Human Services division, and the human resource departments for local hospitals, Collier County public schools, Collier County government, and other municipalities within Collier County, all EMS and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. Those are the people we're going to notify 90 days prior to CO that we have units that, should they want to rent them, are available for them to rent. At the end of that 90 days -- let's just say we have 20 units, at the end of those days, if only 15 are rented up, the other five could go to anybody. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. No. And I guess if there's private institutions, it doesn't seem like they're getting notified, because it's only -- it's only the public institutions. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I guess all I would say is if we're going to go ahead and say these are ESP -- these are for ESP, before we go ahead and impose this notice period, then we would have to justify why we're not giving notice to all -- you know, we already have a definition of ESP, and I don't -- you know, it seems like we should at least consider -- if we're going to say you have to give notice, why are some people being left off the notice? Because there are some large institutions that might, you know, qualify or have a lot of personnel that would qualify. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I take your point, and the one that stands out to me would be NCH, for instance. MR. GIBLIN: Well, NCH would be covered under local hospitals. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, but you don't -- it could include local schools, local daycares. You know, I don't -- MR. GIBLIN: It does. And the official definition does include that, and those people -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, for notice, I mean. MR. GIBLIN: Those folks would be given the preferential early application of 90 days. It's the official written notice will go to these specific organizations. It would be a little difficult, I think, to -- I mean, a new charter school may open every year. It would be difficult to keep a running list of every ESP employer and require notice to all of them. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I guess all I'm saying, then, is, you know, as -- while we're thinking about imposing this restriction, you know, I think we're remiss in not providing for, you know, broader -- you know, we're just saying government is the only place where you can serve the people, or a hospital. Other than that, if you're doing it, you know, privately, through the private sector initiative, which is actually, in my view, more laudable because it's not tax dollars, and it's private initiative people doing good things out serving the public. We're leaving them out. For instance, if we had a place at -- you know, it's not happening, but let's say -- what is the new thing that we were just talking about? There's legal action, that place on Oil Well Road. MR. GIBLIN: Bellmar. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Bellmar. So let's say Bellmar somewhere incorporates -- you know, someone decides to use -- take advantage of affordable housing for density purposes or whatever, and we want to impose this requirement, Ave Maria University wouldn't fall underneath, you know, any of these categories for notice, and they're a huge employer with -- excuse me -- with low salaries performing a very, you know, important service to -- you know, to the county through offering, you know, education. So I guess all I'm saying is is I am -- I would be a lot more comfortable if we're going to impose this notice, that we actually work harder to make sure the notice covers more of the eligible institutions. And I understand you can't -- you know, you can't notify every daycare because that could be -- you know, there's mom-and-pop daycares. I get that. But, then again, they're also on a list. I'm sure they're on some email list that the county has for -- you know, for daycare providers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just want to be careful we don't make this unreasonably burdensome, and we start adding categories, we're probably going to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would say that a teacher at a kindergarten, you know, or a VPK school, a private VPK school, you know, that actually provides service to, you know, people who qualify for VPK, that teacher makes far less than a firefighter and provides a very important service in nurturing, you know, young children, and that's all I'm saying. We're missing -- we're missing people like that, or a professor who's at a private institution, an adjunct professor who's not making very much money, you know, and they're educating the future generation. They're not -- you know, they're just being left off of this. And I don't know why it wouldn't be in the public interest to -- if we're going to say there's a burden of notice, why are we not including making a more expansive list -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Mr. Yovanovich -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- in fairness to all the people that are eligible? Because all those people are eligible, and they're not being able to take advantage of this pre-notice. And it's not really a beef with the applicant. It's a beef with what we're imposing. Why are we imposing something that shorts the people that are eligible and, I get it, doing it in a way that is not extremely onerous? Because I certainly don't think the burden should be on you to have this -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But it will be on me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I know. I think the county should keep -- if we're going to start saying there's a burden, then I think the county should bear the burden, not the private actor. If we're going to say this is what you have to do, then it should be not real difficult for an applicant to do it, and it makes sense that we would have a mechanism. If we think -- and I think we do. If we think affordable housing is so important, then let's have an accurate list that's kept up to date that incorporates all, you know, the employers where they would have eligible employees, and then the applicant can just plug into that, and it's easy for them to comply. And then -- you know, it shouldn't be the applicant's burden to figure out if their list is accurate. It should be us who have imposed the condition that makes sure the list is accurate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I get -- candidly, I get nervous -- I don't even like this list because if I miss one, I now -- I violated -- or my client has missed one, I violated -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, and that's my point, is you should -- you should be able to log in, say, hey, guess what, Mr. Cormac -- I'm sorry. What is your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Giblin. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry -- Mr. Giblin, guess what, we're going online. You know, it's 93 days, and we're getting ready to give notice, you know, here it is, and then the burden is on the county to then send that out to everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm fine with the county -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then you've pressed a button, and you've satisfied your burden, and I think that makes sense, because how else can you prove that you've satisfied this condition? It would be onerous as a burden of proof to actually prove that you covered what this says you're supposed to do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we will provide a list of the fire districts and all those that we provided the notice to. This list is manageable right now. You start adding to that list, I guarantee you I'm going to miss one. Guaranteed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that's why I think the burden should be on the people -- you know, the government that's saying this is a good thing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm perfectly fine with -- and I don't know that everybody on the Planning Commission feels this way. Hey, I'm fine with giving the county 90 days’ notice. Hey, we're going to get a CO in 90 days. You notify whoever you want to. But I don't think that's what you want. I think you want us to go ahead and do this list. I like to keep this list. We've kept public -- colleges and universities are not on this list. It's really the local major employers. And I'm not saying Ave Maria and others are not major employers, but the major employers are on this list, the major categories are on this list, and I'd just as soon keep the list as small as possible, as manageable as possible. And this is being imposed upon us, and we've consented to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not going to be able to impose an obligation on the county in this format. It would have to be an LDC amendment that would go through that process and ultimately go to the Board of County Commissioners, and it would be their decision whether the county takes on the obligation to decide who the additional essential services personnel are. Your idea's not a bad idea. I mean, I'd like to see truly all essential services personnel, broadly. But we've got to make something manageable for this applicant, and so I would recommend that we go with this language this time around, and then if we want to ask staff to consider a broader LDC amendment that's going to shift this burden to the county, I'd support that as well, but let's get by this application first. That's my recommendation. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. I actually had a question on a different topic, but let me address this because I've been thinking about it. You know, I conceptually don't like the idea of favoring certain citizens over other citizens. But, you know, on the heels of COVID and all that, I think we all recognize first responders, you know. They -- there was a movement throughout the country to take care of these folks, and I think it's crucial, and -- but I think the problem with doing something like this, even though it was a good idea initially, is now we're going down this slippery slope, and every time we have a different planning commissioner, there's a different group, you know. And I can make an argument that -- you know, I'm thinking about buying housing for my employees. That literally came up a couple of weeks ago. And so why -- small businesses are the backbone of this community. So why are we going to mistreat small businesses? So you can argue it -- so I think we ought to not have this kind of rule and not go down this slippery slope, or we really need to figure out who we're really trying to help, and that's over and above the commissioner's -- or the Chairman's point. This can become extremely burdensome for either the county or the developer. So I'm uncomfortable with this conversation of let's -- how about them? How about them? How about them? I am comfortable with first responders because of the reasons I've already stated. But I really don't want to go down the road of just adding people all the time. That's my -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I would tend to say that that -- your perspective is really what I'm getting at is favoring -- you know, we have a program because there's a need. There's a lot of people with that need. We obviously know there's certain categories that serve the public in a way that is, you know, more urgent, you know, and maybe they could be at the top of some list, but, like -- you know, it all depends on whether you have friends who are making the call and whether you're added to that category. And I agree with you, I think we should just make it so there's -- you know, it's publicly advertised and -- you know, and not make it so it's reserved for a certain slice of people. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, and if I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You know, I really think, you know, Sheriff Rambosk, NCH -- and they're all over this stuff, you know. If there's affordable housing coming into play, they're going to alert their folks. I mean, again, I'm okay supporting what we have, but Chairman -- or Commissioner Klucik makes a good point, you know, maybe we shouldn't even have this at all. But I'm not comfortable with making it just bigger and bigger and bigger. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So having managed multifamily housing for almost 20 years now, being apartment complexes through high-rises, I can tell you that you don't have a set list as you do here. When it opens up, that apartment complex management company, so on and so forth, that is there, is to find clients to fill, because that is your job. Your job is to fill those apartments with the best candidates, and when you have this type of affordable housing requirement in it, you're going to go out and do the marketing to those government entities first and then branch from there. But what this does it is it keeps them from going and making a deal with an Arthrex or going and making a deal with a Marriott, or so on and so forth, which then cuts out the essential service personnel that this was originally intended for. So I understand -- and I agree, you shouldn't just limit it to one class of people. I agree that you should be able to market it first to those essential service personnel and then allow the development itself to go out in any avenue they want to. That should be allowed. But what I wanted to touch on was when we get every single application, I look at it, and I look at where it's going, does it fit, and how does it work. And since Rich is presenting, I'm just going to say no because it's Rich's but -- just kidding, Rich. I think that when you look at this site, there is really nothing that would work there outside of another vet hospital or equestrian center, which isn't going to happen. You've got two multifamily on either side, and this fits right in the center right across from another apartment community. I'm not comfortable with the size of 5.8 acres. My concern is is that I don't want to see more spot zoning pop up on Vanderbilt because that has water and sewer on it, and we see an issue along those streets that back to it where people are buying multiple lots, and they have -- we have set where you could put 150 on five acres, and somebody goes down and buys two lots and spot zones and puts in a request on this with access on Vanderbilt in the middle of a residential street. Having said that, as I said before, there's nothing that fits there. This is going to be the greatest application that you could do for that exact spot. I would ask that you attempt to use the easement into the Bradford Square, which is next door, and the reason I say that is because Bradford Square has a lane that goes out to Livingston, which does help pull some of that traffic off of Vanderbilt. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do we have an interconnect that way? MR. ARNOLD: What's that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do we have that with Bradford, or is that Sandalwood? MR. ARNOLD: That's to the east; Sandalwood. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Oh, it's in Sandalwood? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, yeah. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm sorry, then, because that was one thing I saw that -- Vanderbilt in the morning is a nightmare. It is -- it is -- you will sit there for 10 to 15 minutes from Wilshire Lakes to get to Livingston during rush hour. So if there's anything -- and I'm not just looking at is for the people that are on the road now. I'm looking at it for your clients that are going to be in your apartment complex. Having said that, as I said, there's nothing else that's going to fit here. I wouldn't have a reason to deny it based off what I just said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, my only comment, we've talked about the people -- the titles of the people, but they still have to qualify financially. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, I mean, we're not -- we're not just wholesaling marketing to just that specific group. Everybody that's marketed, whether they're essential services or not, still have to qualify financially. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well -- and I guess that begs the question that -- you know, I mean -- and you mentioned it, that, well, our goal is to serve ESP. I thought our goal, you know, certainly in -- you know, I don't even think that -- is that even mentioned in our materials? It's affordable housing is what -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Affordable housing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which is not ESP. Affordable housing is for people who meet the income requirements. That's what affordable housing is. And now we're adding a restriction that isn't even in the preparation material. Is there any reference to essential services personnel in any of the material that we received that are in the packet? I don't think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Probably not. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And that's why I don't like ESP being designated here. I think there's -- you know, they have to meet the income requirements. They will because, you know, they want to get the units sold or, you know, rented, and they'll figure out how to do it. And I just -- I think adding ESP is something that hasn't even been envisioned prior to, you know, 20 minutes ago. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, I think -- excuse me, I'm sorry. I think this came up a number of meetings ago because we were looking at the shortage of that, county staffing within this school district, within EMS, and within the Sheriff's Office. I believe that's where this ESP kind of originated from, and then when it came to the Quality Inn on Golden Gate Parkway, that's where this kind of grew out of, I guess, is the best way to put it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I didn't even know I was lit up, but I'll say something. I'm good with leaving this in as-is or taking it out. I'm fine with either. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to look to our legal team. I hope I'm way off here, but is there any chance that a group of individuals could come to us or the developer and say this is discrimination, you are not giving everyone the same announcement, however we term that, of these units becoming available? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'm sorry? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Sorry, my speaker was off. Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: There is a danger. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: There is a danger to it? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that that sort of -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But if you do go with the language, the set-aside units, it's a defined term which is not included in Rich's language. So if you'd like to add it, for purposes of the record, on Line 6 after the words, "will be rounded to the nearest whole," on paragraph -- Affordable Housing A, you'll need to add "cumulatively," quote, "set aside units," unquote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. No one else is signaling at this time. I am of the -- now we have Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I guess just based on that, so then what is our -- after hearing that, that we actually -- probably it would be unwise to, you know, limit the notice to people that fall into the ESP category, that, you know, what -- are we going to make a suggestion to remove something that specific or what? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let me ask the question this way: There's a risk in everything that is done. Would the County Attorney believe that is an unreasonable risk to take? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't -- I mean, I can't speak on behalf of the County Attorney, but I can speak on behalf of Assistant County Attorney, that no, I don't -- I don't think anyone will come forward, but we do have some issues with providing affordable housing, you know, for some of the lower income categories that already exist. So the chances of someone coming forward are probably slim, but there is a possibility. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So -- but wouldn't it be the case that if we are giving preferential treatment to people who are at a certain income level, that could possibly expose us to a claim of discrimination as well? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We do a lot of things every day that could expose us to discrimination. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's my point. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. And -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And while I have the mic, I did want to point out that the Deviation No. 2 text on the open space is, you know, correct cite, the language is clear, and it's acceptable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think Rich is happy to take it out or leave it in. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you, the minute some housing authority comes to us and says this is wrong, we're going to stop. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. I think this is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I have serious concerns about it; my client has serious concerns about it. We're doing it. We're taking some risk, but the minute Fair Housing comes to us and says you've got to stop, we're stopping. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think this was a passion of some of us, and I think we all thought it was a laudable passion. And so, again, I would support it, continuing to take the risk, but, you know, this could clearly fall under the no good deed goes unpunished, and that's -- that's where we're treading. I'm okay -- again, I'll vote to support whatever the will of my teammates are here. I don't want it expanded it -- I'm sorry. I don't want it expanded. But as-is or take it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would request, since Ms. Ashton sort of kind of agrees with me that there's risk, I would like to add the catch-all before that "to the extent permitted by law." CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd be fine with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I want my -- I want my get-out-of-jail-free card, literally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I don't blame you. And, furthermore, we probably ought to put that in for affordable housing at large because it's favoring a certain category of people. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think there's any issue with affordable housing. I think it's when you get down to the category of specific people who meet income categories, that's where it gets a little bit concerning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I have no problem in adding that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know that I would add that text because once you add that text, it means it's -- the whole thing is meaningless, you know. I guess you could say, you know, unless -- yeah, you know, it's a little late in the day. My brain's a little foggy. But if you put something, you know, less determined, you know, by a court or somebody -- agency that it's not appropriate. But to the extent permitted by law, I mean, Rich, how are you going to interpret that? You're going to tell your client it's not permitted? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The Fair Housing -- if it's a violation of the Fair Housing and the people who are in charge of that come to my client and say you're violating the Fair Housing Act, I'm not going to take them to court. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Then we could add "Unless deemed a violation of the Fair Housing Act," blah, blah, blah. Or something like that. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Again -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- either don't put -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I just think we need -- I thought "to the extent permitted by law." My guy can't just simply say it's illegal, but if you want to say to the extent -- either the Fair Housing or any applicable agency. I just want to make sure you're not asking my client to violate a law, go through the adjudication process to finally determine whether or not they are violating the law. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you should either go with the text that was proposed or not go with it. This is language that has been in other PUDs and other projects. You know, once you start putting "to the extent permitted by law," then you might as well not even put it in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I propose we take it out of this one, and I propose we ask at the next meeting or maybe early next year, we get a brief report based on your research on whether we should be doing this or not from legal counsel. That's my proposal. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we've approved the text as-is as approved for form and legality, so... COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, you already -- okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, every PUD we review the language as to form and legality. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, but you've said risk and not great risk. Those are -- I'd like to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I mean, he specifically asked me, is there a -- sorry. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If you're telling me you've approved the language so I'm not contradicting counsel, then, okay, leave it in. But I'm kind of -- Commissioner Sparrazza's question, is there risk? Yes, there is. Okay. Well, it's not unreasonable risk, but there's a risk. Well, I want to -- I want to -- I'd like a legal opinion saying we can't guarantee it, but this is the legal opinion, and leave it in, and we're okay, or we would recommend you don't do it anymore. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's been -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm saying until we get that opinion to just leave it out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been approved as to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, we've approved it as to form and legality, so we've deemed it to be acceptable to go forward. You can't make -- you know, you can't predict the future. I mean, could this happen, yes, it's very foreseeable that -- and it's a statewide issue that there's not affordable housing. So I don't know how, you know, the government is going to find all the counties in violation of the Fair Housing code because there's not enough affordable housing, because that already exists. That's already a problem. That's already exposure, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, now I'm back to where I was half an hour ago, and that is I'm okay -- I'll vote with or without it, whatever my colleagues want to do. I'm comfortable voting including it, and I'm comfortable taking it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just make it clear on the record? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have no issue with including the 30 percent set-aside. We have no issue with that. We don't think there's any risk that we're going to be found in violation. I shouldn't say "any," but for having income-restricted units. It's when you say who qualifies for those income-restricted units, we are concerned about the Fair Housing Act. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you didn't object to it with Ascend, and you didn't object to it with the one on the Golden Gate Parkway. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have always said, my client is willing to take the risk, and I'm putting on the record today, the minute the -- if my client's fear comes to fruition that we're violating it, we're going to stop. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, language that's typically in there is "preference will be given to ESP." It's not only ESP, okay. So they already have the ability. And I don't know how the county is going to monitor preferences given and whether they're in compliance or not, so, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did want to make a comment, and Cormac's up here. We've been talking essential services personnel for, what, 10 years, we've been using this language, and I think the language is preference will be given, but it isn't strictly marketing to that group. There -- it was a recognition that we would provide the information to the leaders of those agencies. But if you hire someone that you think qualifies, the problem is you may not know. They get the information. But the only preference is that there's a notice, but there would be a public notice anyway. If there's a unit available, isn't it advertised in the paper rents available? Go ahead. MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, again, for the record. That would be up to the developer's marketing professionals to -- their advertising. I wanted to clarify that there are two distinct things here. There is the income limitation, and then there is the preference advertising, the pre-advertising that go to the ESP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's notification. MR. GIBLIN: Notification. There are only seven protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. It's race, religion, national origin, familial status, sex, and disability. Where you work is not one of those seven protected classes. Now, yes, someone can sue over any discrimination they may have felt, but the county has no objection -- or staff doesn't object to the language being in or out. It is just choosing which employers or which job classifications will get that advanced notice of availability, but it's not restricting those units to only the people in those classes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yeah, but I think -- I do think you've set it up that way. So, for instance, for a daycare or a school that is church affiliated, both the institution as well as the employees, if we're choosing to deliberately not notify those employers and we're notifying the public employers, what we're doing is that's discrimination against, you know, religious places of employment. And there is an argument to make; I'm not saying anyone's going to make it. But that's -- you know, you mentioned the categories. Trust me, that's definitely a category that you could get a lot of truck with both in court as well as with publicity, and people are looking for stuff like that, you know, to champion, you know, their cause. And why give that -- why make that so it's such an easy issue, you know, to arise when we could somehow deal with it? MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. Staff could propose that notice be given to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee at the 90-day period. That's a public meeting. That is a meeting that's publicly noticed. They can make that, and any employer who would like to keep abreast of units that are coming available can stay tuned into the AHAC meetings, and that could short circuit all of this. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That seems like a good alternative. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's -- I think we've fully discussed this, and I'd like to try to put something up for a vote and maybe a way -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is there any public? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not -- there wasn't at first, but before -- I'll call for public. But I'm just -- I'm going to throw this out and see if it's an acceptable way for us to proceed. Someone could make a motion that we approve both the GMPA and the PUDZ in its original language, and then someone else -- and I'll tell you I would do it -- would move to amend the main motion to include the ESP language, and that either passes or fails, and then we'll have it on record how it went, and then we could vote on the main motion. Does anybody object to that as a way of proceeding? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, what about Mr. -- gosh -- Cormac. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Giblin. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- Mr. Giblin's suggestion that we -- that the notification be at -- public notice at the housing meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that could be another motion to amend. It doesn't suit me, but -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. You know, I brought up the issue. That doesn't -- you know, I mean, I brought it up because I just think it's something to think about. I'm not -- you know, I'm not adamant that we -- you know, I would vote for whatever we come up with, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see. Ms. Padron, do we have any public speakers? MR. SABO: Chairman Fryer, there are no public speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone in the room who's not registered but yet, nonetheless, wishes to be heard on this subject, now would be the time to raise your hand to signal. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands, the public comment portion of this hearing is closed. Mr. Yovanovich, do you have anything in rebuttal or anything further you want to say before we take this up for deliberation and vote? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. So the matter is now in our hands. I'd entertain a motion at this point, or discussion. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion to approve as proposed initially, and then we can make a motion to the -- based on the added language. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And what you're proposing we vote on first is without the essential services language. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to make a motion to amend, which takes precedence over the main motion, so we'll have to vote on that first. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Go ahead. Why don't you make -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm going to get a second on his -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll second then. I made the motion. I thought you were -- go ahead. I thought you were -- go ahead. Sorry. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You make the motion, he'll second it, and we'll vote on it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The motion was -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm betting it will pass. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Original. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Original. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And who seconded that? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I second that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The court reporter's clear on that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to make it clear, you mean the original with the modification to go to 30 percent? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: With the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- modification as proffered at the beginning of the meeting and as agreed to by staff, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Thank you. All right. Now, I will now make a motion to amend the main motion to include the ESP language that has been proffered, not necessarily supported, but at least proffered by the applicant. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's been seconded. So we'll vote on the motion to amend first. Is there discussion -- further discussion on the motion to amend before we get to the main motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the motion to amend, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. All right. Now we turn to the -- Vice Chairman, you're signaling is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, that was from before, but we have to separate items. They're both being voted on concurrently. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're going to vote now on the main motion, which is jointly on the GMPA and the RPUDZ with the raise to 30 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And that's been moved and seconded, and it's also been amended. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming you're only putting the ESP language into the PUD, because that's how we've done that before? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to make sure when you're voting on that, you're making that distinction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Good clarification. Any further discussion on that? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have something to add. I have something to add. Go Army. Beat Navy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Who are you aiming that at? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, as an Army alumnus, I thank you, too. Okay. All those in favor of the main motion as amended, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Oh, Mr. Bosi, what did you want to say? MR. BOSI: I was just laughing at Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Planning Commission. So now, we are -- I'll get back on track here. We don't have any other substantive rezones to be heard at this time. Is there any old business to come before this afternoon session? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hearing and seeing none, is there any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment on matters that were not on the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, and without objection, but with the preamble of me saying Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year to all, without objection, we're adjourned. COMMISSIONER VERNON: We have to be back at 5. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, and -- yes, we'll be back at 5:05 for the second session. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thirty minutes of fun. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:26 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 FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.