Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/07/2024March 7, 2024 Page 1 of 103 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 7, 2024 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 Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (participating remotely) Paul Shea Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Randy Sparrazza ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office March 7, 2024 Page 2 of 103 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, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the March 7, 2024, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I ask the secretary to call the roll, Commissioner Klucik needs to -- would like to participate, due to business matters, remotely, and so we need to follow the drill that we usually do and ask him to just give us a reason so that we can make a finding. Commissioner Klucik, are you there, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll proceed through the taking of the roll, then, and when he joins, we'll have that formality. Mr. Secretary, would you call the roll, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Klucik? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a quorum, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of how many, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have one, two, three, four, five. Five out of seven until Mr. -- Commissioner Klucik responds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It might be six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we're five now, going on six, we hope. Let me just make a note of that. All right. Addenda to the agenda, due to some extraordinary circumstances, which have kind of converged on the office of the County Attorney this morning, we've been requested to move the Emmanuel Church matter up to the No. 1 position. And our County Attorney, in person, will be here, and we're always delighted to have him. Mr. Perry will be excusing himself for that. So I would -- and I've talked to Mr. Yovanovich, and he's indicated that he's willing to go with either of his two clients first, so he's okay with going first up with Emmanuel. And, therefore, I would entertain a motion that we move Emmanuel, which is a March 7, 2024 Page 3 of 103 GMP and a PUD, move that up to the first item. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion as suggested and recommended. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. And that is what we will do. Mr. Bellows, were there any other addenda to the agenda? Oh, yeah, there are. There is. Or at least future agendas. MR. BOSI: Yes. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just to let the Planning Commission know that we have advertised no petitions for the 21st of March, so there is nothing for the Planning Commission to meet about. So we're going to request that the Planning Commission make a motion to cancel that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd entertain that motion, please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's like a snow day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Someone who wants a snow day, may I have a motion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'll move. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. So we will not be meeting on March 21, which means that our next meeting will be on April 4. Well, I should say anything further, Mr. Bellows, on the addenda? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes. March 7, 2024 Page 4 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. So our next meeting will be the first April meeting, which is April 4 of 2024. And that's going to include the Fiddler's Creek matter, and so I believe the vice chairman's going to be recusing himself. So my question is, other than the vice chair, does anyone else know if he or she will not be able to be in attendance at the April 4 meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Chair, I will not be in attendance for the April 4 meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I should be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Well, it looks like we'll have a quorum; we hope to. So that's good. And then we'll move right to approval of minutes. We have one set of minutes before us. Those are the minutes of our February 15, 2024, meeting. Any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: The minutes are approved unanimously. BCC report and recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. During the last Board meeting, the PUD rezone for JLM Living East was continued to the April 23rd BCC meeting at the applicant's request, and then on the summary agenda, the Board approved an LDC amendment for the communication towers, and they also approved the PUD amendment for the Collier Boulevard Mixed-Use Commerce Center PUD that dealt with increasing the building heights on two buildings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. And I should say that the record should show that Mr. Perry has excused himself from the proceedings. Now -- and to the first public hearing, advertised, we'll hear two companions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Could I make a brief statement? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. I skipped right -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just wanted to let my colleagues know, as the March 7, 2024 Page 5 of 103 environmental chair, that in case you've not been following the news, in February the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approval of Florida's right to issue 404 permits. That's under the Clean Water Act. That was an Army Corps of Engineer requirement. It is throughout the United States except for two states, Michigan and New Jersey, which have the right, and Florida, under that privilege as well, almost two and a half, three years ago, asked to assume responsibility for wetland permits. The Court found that the EPA acted in error. There's been a lot of misinformation on that. I won't get into the details. But the issue right now is that the State of Florida is prohibited, and the function is being returned back to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and that's the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for wetlands impacts. And it also involves Section 7, consultation under the Environmental Species Act. The State of Florida, in a move now through the -- I believe it's the -- well, there's been a stay requested through several agencies in the state of Florida to have Florida retain that right. So it's -- just for your notes and just for your understanding, it's going to have a significant impact on permitting in the state of Florida because the Jacksonville district turned everything over to the state. The state, quite honestly, three [sic] and a half, three years ago was totally ill-prepared to assume the responsibility, but they finally staffed up and did it as part of their Environmental Resource Permit, and now the Corps of Engineers has to staff up again and take over the responsibility. So it's -- it is going to have a serious impact on the permitting business in the state of Florida. And if I recall, it was the Florida Chamber of Commerce that initiated -- and other agencies in the state of Florida trying to prevent issuing a stay so that the State of Florida can continue to monitor permits. I can get into a lot more detail because I certainly have a far -- a great understanding in my previous life as an Army engineer. But that's where we are, and we'll see how it shakes out. So I just wanted to make sure you all knew. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Vice Chairman. That's very useful information. And once, I apologize. We had a conversation about this, and then I just blazed right through it. So my bad. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's all right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***So first off, we've got two companions, PL20200002204, the Emmanuel Lutheran Church Community Facilities and Subdistrict Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and PL20200002198, the Emmanuel Lutheran Church Community Facilities PUDA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRAN FRYER: Here's -- let's swear in witnesses, Mr. Klucik, and then we'll take you. Thank you. Glad you're on. 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.) March 7, 2024 Page 6 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And before we call for ex parte, let's ask Commissioner Klucik to state the reason, for the record, and then we'll take a vote on his request to participate remotely. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I had a client, an issue came up that was on hold, then all of a sudden, it was live, and so I was up late last night, and I also have a lot of work to do on it today at the last minute, so that's why I won't be coming in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. May I have a motion to permit remote participation? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion to permit, as requested. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So this is extraordinary circumstances, which certainly have been provided to us. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome to the meeting, Commissioner Klucik. And now -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman -- and I do want to apologize. I was having technical difficulty logging in, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, no problem. Well, we're glad that we've got you. Ex parte disclosures, starting with Ms. Lockhart, please. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: None. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and a site visit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record, meetings with staff, communications with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Discussions with Mr. Yovanovich and staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. So we're ready to proceed. The Chair recognizes Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, and good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant in this matter. The applicant is Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc. The representative for the church is Howard Isaacson; he's here. Bob Mulhere is our planner. Myself as a land-use attorney. Mr. Trebilcock is our transportation planner. Terry Cole is our civil March 7, 2024 Page 7 of 103 engineer, and Jeremie Chastain is a planner with Hole Montes, a Bowman company, who is also working on this petition. This is a request to amend an existing subdistrict that has several community-facility-related uses to modify some of the uses, add some uses, and add roughly almost 15 acres of land to this community facility subdistrict. I'm emphasizing community facility subdistrict because Mr. Bosi wants to make it clear that we're not a mixed-use PUD as we go through this process, I'm sure, for the obvious reasons of wanting to assure that we can't use this PUD as a basis for the Live Local Act to somehow convert this to a residential project, which is not our intent. Our intent is for this to be a community facility subdistrict. I looked around the room. I didn't see a lot of neighborhood members here, so I'm going to do a brief overview like I typically do, have Bob go over a brief overview of the master plan that we have proposed. Essentially, there were two staff recommendations associated with this petition. One wanted to convert the food truck -- food trucks that we can have from a permitted use to an accessory use. We are fine with that recommendation because the hours of operation for the potential food trucks coincide with the operation of the fields, and that is a permitted use. So having the food trucks operating during the same hours of the normal business operation hours for the fields are fine with us. We do not agree with the request that we eliminate the medical use. The medical use -- and Bob will get into this in a little bit greater detail -- is a non-for-profit 3600-square-foot maximum use that is, essentially, the neighborhood clinic that you find on Goodlette-Frank Road. So it's not a for-profit medical facility. It is going to be a not-for-profit medical facility that will provide services to those who basically can't afford to pay for medical. It's a sliding-scale neighborhood clinic, and that's what this is going to be out there. And Bob will get into greater details why we believe there is sufficient data and analysis to support that use on this parcel of property. We have 90,000 square feet already approved as part of this petition. We're not changing that. We have -- childcare and a private school are allowed as uses. We are making some modifications to those uses. And I already kind of hit the highlight of the major use that we're changing that we disagree with staff on the medical office. All other uses staff is agreeing with us with regard to our proposed uses on the property. I'll briefly go over -- you can see here the changes to the Future Land Use Map that are necessitated as a result of our adding the 15 acres and the changes to the zoning that will be necessitated as a part of this petition. We are converting -- or we're asking to rezone some Estates lots to this district. When we had our first neighborhood information meeting, there were concerns from residents who lived along 31st Avenue about the potential for access onto what they perceived to be a local road related to the church. That is eliminated. There is no access onto 31st Avenue; therefore, I think that may be why you don't see a lot of people here in the audience related to this petition. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Bob to go over the master plan in greater detail and then discuss some of the data and analysis that we have provided with regard to the medical use, but before that, if you have any questions of me, I'm happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have -- I do. March 7, 2024 Page 8 of 103 The uses in question, the medical and the food trucks, it seems to me they're commercial uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: I disagree. I don't think in any way a neighborhood center that's providing medical services to people who can't afford medical services is a commercial activity. We think that is a community facility. It's a community service. Probably a little -- no different than a senior center or other centers that are providing services to people who need those services. So we disagree with staff on that basis. If it were a typical medical office, I would be prone to agree that is a retail -- or an office use, but in this particular case, when Bob gets into the details about you can either have people drive 16 miles to go to Immokalee, 17 miles to probably get to the intersection of Collier Boulevard, you can go to the emergency room to get those services, or you could have a neighborhood center that you can go to and get those services. I think that's a community -- the community service is not a typical retail/office use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, before we go to the food trucks, then, let's talk a little more about the medical office building. This is -- this is not, I take it, a facility where the physicians and other health providers are volunteering, is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're volunteering their services? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is exactly how the neighborhood center works. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nobody -- is there a salaried executive director? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if the executive director at the neighborhood center makes a salary, but the doctors and the nurses are volunteers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, that -- that enlightens me. I appreciate that. The -- Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just to follow up, the clinic on Goodlette-Frank, the director -- I used to know the director at that time, Doc Manazack (phonetic) at that time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Dr. Lascheid. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, he's the other. But they were volunteers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's strictly for -- those who qualify can go there. So the option would be they go there or they have to go to Immokalee. Those are the two options. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or an emergency room. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or emergency room. But it is not what I would consider a -- what do these -- like across from the hospital, the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Like the doc-in-the-box urgent care centers that you go? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, the doc-in-the-box or when you go to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Walk-in clinics. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the walk-in clinics. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's -- this is strictly a community service. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is exactly what the church wants it to be. It's 36 -- only 3600 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'll put you or Bob on the spot. When you March 7, 2024 Page 9 of 103 were negotiating with staff on this, was there just a misunderstanding that -- or did staff give you a justification as to why they thought this was not appropriate? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let staff address that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll ask staff the same thing, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll let Bob. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can offer some insight. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Wait a minute now. Mr. Yovanovich, come back, sir. I'm not finished with you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I was answering Mr. Schmitt's question. I thought he was up. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't mean to walk away from you, Mr. Fryer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. Just -- well, let me, if I may -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, go ahead, because that will be a question I can follow up with anybody. So that's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So the other thing that I noticed was that there was no needs assessment provided with respect to the health facility. Now, as a matter of, perhaps, common sense, we can all say that it's a good idea to have it there. But, you know, under 3177 of 162, there seems to be a proof of -- a need for a proof of need. Do you disagree? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, here's what people want. What people are interpreting 163.3177 to mean is I've got to do some type of statistical analysis. It can also be we're providing you information there are none of these facilities in this -- for 16 miles, for 16 miles. That's data; that's analysis. I don't have to go hire a medical professional who's going to do some type of a statistical analysis to say there are 2700 people who make a certain level of income in this area; therefore, we should be able to do this. We don't have to go to that level of detail. We can provide the data and analysis which is the location of these facilities, and that is data and analysis. It didn't satisfy staff, but we did provide data and analysis. We have a disagreement frequently on what staff thinks is data and analysis. But data and analysis can even be community input. That's data and analysis. It's not just a numbers-crunching exercise. Did you want to add anything, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I would say that the -- I took umbrage, and I still do, to a sentence in that staff report that says we asked five times for data and analysis, and we never received it. I will point out to you, if you want me to, the data and analysis that we submitted. So I think that would have been a better word, "we disagree with the data and analysis; we don't think it's sufficient," rather than to say we didn't submit it. That's not accurate. As Rich said, you know, we had a fundamental disagreement with whether this is commercial use or not a commercial use. And the staff report recommends approval subject to those two conditions which vary between the zoning and the Comprehensive Planning. We felt that the restriction on square footage and the requirement that it be not-for-profit establishes a reasonable basis for that use being a community facility use and March 7, 2024 Page 10 of 103 not a for-profit commercial use, and we provided data and analysis that says this type of use doesn't exist for 17 miles in one direction and 16 miles in another direction. That's data and analysis. And it should be sufficient, as you said, Mr. Chairman, for anybody using common sense to understand that this area's underserved. Why would we have to go do a market study when, from our perspective, this is not a commercial use? Now, we can agree to disagree on that fact, and I got that, but to suggest that we didn't provide any data and analysis is simply inaccurate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich, with respect to the health facility, one last question I have on it. There seems to be -- when one looks at your uses and the changes being proposed to be made to the uses, it seems to be an effort at secularization, moving away from the religious affiliation. So my question, I guess, generally, why would you be doing that, and more specifically in the case of the health center, why you would not want that to be associated with the church? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the church's goal is to provide services to the community. And I can have Howard come up and talk about why the disassociation. Because the church isn't going to own and operate those uses. So when you say "affiliated with the church," Emmanuel Lutheran isn't going to be the owner and operator of the medical use. They're not going to be the owner and operator of other uses in there. These are important services to the community. Some people may decide they don't want to go to that use if it's affiliated with a specific church. So why -- if it's a use that's to serve the general community, why do you have to have it be owned and operated by Emmanuel Lutheran Church? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I wasn't suggesting ownership and operation, just an affiliation of some kind. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's within their PUD. It's on their property. So I think there still is that affiliation, but it's not owned and operated by the church, which is the way I would have interpreted the previous language. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will there be a lease? MR. ISAACSON: The answer is absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hey, Howard. You've got to come up. MR. ISAACSON: Sorry. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, in response that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name. MR. ISAACSON: Howard Isaacson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. ISAACSON: Any not-for-profit here in Collier County that is going to invest into -- whether it's desks and chairs or any kind of equipment and personnel, will be -- want a legal lease, and so that would be our expectation as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So there's not one yet? MR. ISAACSON: No. We have not -- this is not a commercial venture. We have not presold any -- to any not-for-profits. What we are trying to do, as Mr. Yovanovich had said, is offer the opportunity to local not-for-profits to bring their services to an underserved part of the community. We've been working, of course, with the community -- the Collier County Community Foundation, their needs assessments. We have done extensive studies. We've had years of conversations with local March 7, 2024 Page 11 of 103 not-for-profits who have voiced their desire to meet the demands of that community out there. And so what we have said is we've -- with the approval of the Planning Commission and the county commissioners, we will have 36 acres on which services can be provided. To respond to your question as to the shift in language from "affiliation," semantics and words are always very important. "Affiliation" leaves some level of interpretation, and we didn't want to get hung on a word. And so they will be partners on the site. Will they be affiliated? Will they have shared directors? No. Will they have other, you know, traditional affiliation-type characteristics? And the answer is probably not, because each of them will be independent not-for-profits. And so we wanted to be very, very careful on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. ISAACSON: And we're also hoping that, ultimately, the site hosts multiple communities of faith, of multiple denominations. And so to link specifically to Emmanuel Lutheran Church could be limiting. We wanted to try and make life easy for everyone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. That clarifies it for me. Thank you very much. Let's turn to the food trucks, Mr. Yovanovich. I take it that the employees there are not going to be volunteers. MR. YOVANOVICH: They could or they could not. They may be -- it may be I decide to go into the food truck business and have a food truck there that comes in the morning and leaves at the end of the hours. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you wouldn't want to limit it to volunteer food trucks, would you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and we haven't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So how is that not a commercial activity? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's going to be an accessory use, according to staff. So it's going to be accessory to the not -- a noncommercial use, which is the fields that are open to the public, which is a community facility. It's no different than Collier County has food trucks in their parks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: They didn't make them a commercial activity because you're in a county park. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'm going to ask one more, if I may, Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this one actually goes to the County Attorney. The Live Local Act has to do with uses that are commercial in nature. Whether they be principal or accessory, I guess, is part of my question. Even though this is not going to be a mixed-use PUD, it's going to be a CFPUD. Are there concerns that that portion, perhaps, of this property could become subject to Live Local and we would lose local control? MR. KLATZKOW: It's the current consensus in Florida that PUDs do not fall within the ambit of Live Local. March 7, 2024 Page 12 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I missed the -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's the general consensus in Florida that Live Local does not apply to PUDs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Including MPUDs? MR. KLATZKOW: Any PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, that's interesting. MR. KLATZKOW: It's for commercially zoned property, primarily. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very interesting. So, like, for C-1 through 5? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very interesting. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Has that been tested, or is that just the hopes of the people who are getting paid to give advice that's, you know -- again, I'm not -- it's not a dig on attorneys. I'm an attorney. But, you know -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's been -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That might be the hope of the people that have reached that conclusion, because that's the industry. The issue is, has that been tested? Is that -- do we know for sure that's how, legally, it will be interpreted by the courts if it came down to it? MR. KLATZKOW: It has not been tested yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. County Attorney. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I would just -- that appears to be your best legal opinion and shared by -- obviously, you're saying that it's shared by others. MR. KLATZKOW: There's also -- there is also -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you're saying -- excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. It appears to be your -- MR. KLATZKOW: I hate remote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- opinion and shared by many others that would have interest in this topic, but it is speculative. It is hopeful. It is not what we know to be certain, and we should not be making a decision based -- in my view, we certainly shouldn't -- if we make the decision, it should be based on the idea that that isn't something certain. MR. KLATZKOW: In my view -- in my view -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me know when you're done, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You know what, I don't -- you know, you'll know when I'm done. I haven't -- I haven't stopped talking, so -- welcome back, by the way. MR. KLATZKOW: I'd say it's a pleasure, but... COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: My point is that -- you know, I think the concern of the Chairman, and I certainly have the concern, is that we want to be very mindful of what we're -- you know, we're putting our foot in the door and we want to find out what might come in, and I think the idea that that's a hopeful interpretation, you know, the concern is to make sure that we don't do something, not to hope that we don't do something. That would be what I think the Chairman might, you know, be getting at. That's certainly what March 7, 2024 Page 13 of 103 I'm concerned with. I am done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm going back to the food trucks. Rich, if a food truck is going to operate in one of the parks, let's say Vineyard's Park or whatever, they have to get a daily permit for that? MR. YOVANOVICH: To be honest with you, I don't know if they have to do that in the county parks or not. I don't know if they have to get a temporary-use permit. We could come in and ask for a temporary-use permit, but we would be capped. So what we're saying is we don't want to be capped to 28 days in a year. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is a request for I'll call it a permanent use then, or permitted use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Permitted accessory use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Accessory use, okay. As far as enforcement, meaning if there's any issues in regards to the site cleanliness, health operations, any of those types of things, that all would be -- if I were to go out there and had a complaint, I would contact county code enforcement if I had an issue with -- with the operational aspects of these food trucks? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we're violating the hours of operation that are in the PUD or any other -- any other code related to cleanliness and safety and sanitary use, yes, they'd go to Code Enforcement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But like any other vendor, they still have to have a license to operate a food truck. MR. MULHERE: I was going to say there's potentially two courses of reporting for some perceived violation. One would be Code Enforcement. The other one would be the Department of Health which licenses these. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. MULHERE: But I did want to also add that we have agreed to comply with the newly, I believe, approved -- they haven't been yet? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. MULHERE: We've put in there that we would comply with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we've done is we are going through the process that we advocated for during the last meeting at the Planning Commission, that we go through a public-hearing process to identify where food trucks would be an appropriate use. So we're going through a public-hearing process to identify this location to have a maximum of four food trucks from the hours of 7 to 9, essentially, at this location and the criteria for them to be there. So we're going through that process. The Board has not adopted a policy as to how, as a matter of right, that can occur. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the ultimate entity in charge of overseeing operations is -- will be the church, then? I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- from the standpoint of they're the property owner and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And if I have an issue with conduct or whatever is March 7, 2024 Page 14 of 103 happening on site, it would be with -- ultimately, the landowner, property owner is responsible. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. Like every other code case, if there's a code case. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The ownership, I think, we have no -- apparently, I mean, from what I would see, we would have no way to know in the future who would own it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Own the property? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: What we don't have at this point -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sir, sir, sir, sir, if we're changing the code, we're changing the code. When we change the code, it doesn't care who owns it because in this case it's -- you know, it's not limited to a church or even a nonprofit. Anyone could end up owning those properties. Do you see the concern that we have? MR. YOVANOVICH: But the only people who can own those -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. That was a yes-or-no question. Do you see the concern that I just expressed? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't see the concern. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I explain why? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. No. You're a smart man, and that's an obtuse answer, I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, no. You can -- you'll have the floor at some point if you want to address that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: My concern with all of this is this was approved in an area. Obviously, we have people who are watchdogs who live in the area that don't want anything resembling commercial activity in that area, in the Golden Gate Estates area. And what we have now is we have a church. Oh, isn't that nice? And it is nice. And here's the thing, all of this is wonderful, every single thing that's proposed. And the concept is great. So I love the concept. And I hope -- for our attorney, I hope he's right, you know -- in some ways, I hope he's right about the interpretation of PUDs and Live Local. So this has nothing to do with what I like, what I want. We have to follow the law, and we have to, you know, respect what we know are concerns in the community, and the community here largely doesn't want commercial. You know, that seems to be a very strong opinion that we've heard over the years from many of the residents, and certainly the -- you know, the code doesn't allow commercial stuff unless we make special provisions, and this one special provision is supposed to be church and related things. Now, if the land were to get sold, you have a medical clinic. The medical clinic March 7, 2024 Page 15 of 103 happens to be nonprofit, but it doesn't have to stay nonprofit. If you build a medical clinic and it has trouble surviving, they don't have donors, then they sell it, they sell it to a -- you know, now all of a sudden there's a lot more people out there. Then all of a sudden it could be a commercial for-profit medical clinic. Do you understand the concern? I'll ask you again. You can give an obtuse answer or say you don't understand, that's fine, but I think it's pretty clear what the concern is. I just want to know if you understand why I'm asking these questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand why you're asking the questions, but in order for me to give you why I think you shouldn't be concerned, I have to say more than yes or no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. I understand that. That's great. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. First of all, the PUD requires that every one of these uses be not-for-profit. You cannot convert it to a for-profit without it going through this process of amending the PUD and satisfying four out of the five county commissioners to amend the PUD as well as amend the Growth Management Plan. So there's a public-hearing process that it goes through. Let me finish. It's my turn. It's my turn. It's my turn. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, no, no, no, no. You'll have your chance. Because I'm going to address what you just said. That's not my understanding that -- what you just said, that this has to be nonprofit. I don't see that in the language. It says medical or outreach. It doesn't say -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It says. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- adult training. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says not-for-profit. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where? MR. YOVANOVICH: In the Comp Plan language and I believe also in the PUD language. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, you know what? That's great. That was not clear to me, obviously. I mean, you know, I hope you realize, if that had been clear to me -- and it certainly wasn't clear in the discussion that I had with staff. If -- you know, if that had been clear to me, I wouldn't be going on about it. So I'd like to see the specific language that requires every single one of these uses to be nonprofit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think it goes that far. There are some, if I recall, maybe secondary schools could be for-profit. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Let's -- medical outreach, No. 7. I don't have it. It says, must be not-for-profit in the PUD. The only one -- and I'm not going to say "the only one” because I'm reading really quickly, and I didn't realize this, is the childcare services doesn't say must be not-for-profit. But not-for-profit is absolutely there for the medical office use. Now, let me -- since this seems to be a concern -- some of this concern has to do with the Live Local Act. We can waive our right in the PUD to avail ourselves in the future to the Live Local Act, and we will be happy to do that in the PUD. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think that's enforceable. March 7, 2024 Page 16 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why not? MR. KLATZKOW: It's a state right. It's a state statute. I don't think on a local government we can say no. I disagree with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. But I believe property owners have the right to waive the ability to ask for something. You don't think -- I'm trying to make life easier for everybody by waiving that right publicly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It may be your point of view, and it may be correct, but I don't think it's a settled issue. That may be a non-waivable right. But be that as it may, just to follow up on a statement that Commissioner Klucik made, it's true that another operator could come in, and it would have to be a nonprofit operator, and that's a good thing. But it wouldn't have to be a non-profit operator composed of all volunteers, would it? It could be highly compensated physicians, highly compensated hospital-type administrators, just like the folks over at NCH who are very highly compensated, and that, I think, also gets you toward commercialization of a use. Not-for-profit, even 501(c)3 not-for-profit can pay huge salaries to people. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 3600 square feet. I don't think NCH is going to come out here and pay a bunch of money to doctors and try to make this a pseudo retail commercial operation for doctors. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we add the expression "all volunteer" to healthcare workers there? MR. ISAACSON: And the answer is, sir -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come on up here. MR. ISAACSON: I'm sorry, sir. Howard Isaacson, once again. Mr. Commissioner, the answer, unfortunately, is no. We are working with local community not-for-profits. That is the world in which we live. If we -- if there are volunteer doctors who wish to work there, that is absolutely fantastic and welcomed, but there are many folks who actually need income and cannot volunteer their time. Sir, as an aside, we have been working with Meals of Hope for the last four years feeding the hungry in that community. When we started, it was 250 families a week. We're now up to 700 families a week. These are people who need jobs. So our hope is also to create jobs on 36 acres, not to have it be all volunteer, and if there are no volunteers, that it be a white elephant and abandoned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Was there a -- I think I've heard everything I need to hear on the hospital side. And I don't think the fact that it's currently going to be all volunteer makes any difference. I think the question -- without deciding how I'm going to vote, but I think the question at issue is whether a not-for-profit can be a commercial activity whether it has volunteers or it has highly paid health providers. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a use issue. What is the use? Is the use commercial in nature, or is the use residential in nature or whatever? It's a use question. It has nothing to do with whether it's profit, not-for-profit. It's a use issue, because it's the use that generates the traffic and everything else that staff relies upon when they review the application. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. So -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So, Mr. Chairman -- March 7, 2024 Page 17 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Commissioner, I've got to let Commissioner Vernon speak, because he's been waiting patienting. So let's hear from him, and then we'll go to you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I want to apologize for two reasons. Usually I do -- because I have a pretty busy job, I usually do a more expedited preparation than everybody on the panel. Kudos to all my panel members. I rely on them heavily, but I've done even less preparation for this one because I just got swamped with work. I had to cancel my meeting with staff, so I came in cold, just completely cold. And so I'm a little lost here. I feel like -- that everybody wants to do this project. I feel like it's a phenomenal project. I think that the two things I'm hearing from my fellow members is, what about future operators? What about future owners? And, you know, what about state involvement? And I think having Mr. Klatzkow here has been tremendously helpful to me, so thank you for your input; I really appreciate it. It's good insight. So I kind of feel like, let's -- you know, I just got my mediator training. I feel like we ought to sit around in a room and try to solve this problem rather than fussing about the problem. Kudos to my team, who are my fellow members here, because they're thinking ahead. They're not thinking your church. They're thinking about 10 years from now, which is amazing and great. But I'm just opening the floor to you to give me your thoughts. And you've said them piecemeal, and we've said them piecemeal. But let's talk about two issues: Future operators, future owners, how do we protect against our concerns? And state involvement, specifically Live Local, how do we address that? And so I just open up the floor to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple things. Remember, we analyzed the use from a traffic standpoint, okay. We analyzed those uses from a traffic standpoint, and there are no traffic issues related to our proposed project. So from a -- whether it was a not-for-profit medical use or a for-profit medical use, the traffic impacts have been analyzed. We've had two neighborhood information meetings. The uses have been in the proposed subdistrict and in the PUD in both of those neighborhood information meetings. The concern from the neighborhood was access onto that local street. So when we talk about uses and this ground swell of everybody who's concerned, that concern's not there from the neighborhood right now; it's not there. Now, the proposed uses that we're proposing are all very, very good uses and very, very needed uses. They all say it has to be not-for-profit, so whoever owns the underlying dirt is going to have that limitation on whoever their tenants are; it has to be a not-for-profit. Now, regarding who overall owns the dirt, I need to talk to my client about -- when we get a break -- to see if there's a further limitation we could put on who will buy the property in the future, who is eligible to buy the property. I'm sure we'll agree it has to be a not-for-profit -- if we ever decide to sell the property, it's going to have to be owned by a not-for-profit. So you have the not-for-profit March 7, 2024 Page 18 of 103 there. I tried to offer you a solution to the Live Local Act. I think we can legally waive it. I'm not your lawyer. Mr. Klatzkow disagrees. I think we can legally waive coming under Live Local. Your further assurance is we're calling ourselves a community facility subdistrict and community facility zoning. The buzz words in Live Local are "commercial" and "mixed-use." We're neither of those things in our zoning district. I don't want to go off track on what PUDs may or may not be eligible to use Live Local. What I do know is a community facility PUD can't use Live Local. I don't have anything on my master plan which is up -- I don't know -- that has the word -- or the letter C on it for commercial. It doesn't exist on my PUD. So no portion of this PUD is designated commercial. So if there was a portion of it that was designated commercial, we might have an argument over that portion using Live Local, and Jeff and I can fight over whether a PUD is subject to Live Local or not. But we're not here to use this as a steppingstone to become a residential development. We have our fallback, which is residential -- a number of residential units based upon the underlying Estates zoning for those residential uses. So I think there's a way to get there, Commissioner Vernon, because I think this is an underserved community. I think there will be more underserved individuals that will move out that way that are going to need these uses. You're going to have more service people coming to Collier County to service the homes out east that are coming as part of the villages and towns. So this is a good project, and we would like to get there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I'm with you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would like to get there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think even Mr. Klucik, who may be giving you the hardest time, he loves the project, based on his comments. So I think we all like the project, and I think that, you know, I sometimes wonder if we're almost too sympathetic to the neighborhood, I think, especially me and Mr. Shea sometimes. We listen a lot to the neighborhood, and so I think that's super, super important. But that's not -- I don't think that's the problem here. You know, the problem is future owners, future operators, and the Live Local component of the state, which you did address, so I appreciate that. So I don't know what the next step is, but I just hate to see us come to a vote when maybe there's some kind of thing where the staff and you can get together on a break and maybe fix some things. And I am going to rely on Mr. Klatzkow and not you as to the law, but if he's -- if he's right, then you waive it; it doesn't matter. If he's wrong and you waive it, it helps us. So you might want to waive it even if it's -- if it doesn't work. It's not going to hurt anything, unless I'm missing something. So I don't know. I just feel like, you know -- I'm very appreciative of the questions of my fellow members, but I just feel like I'd like to get this to a yes, but I'd like to get to a yes in the way that we're -- you know, our job is not the same job as what the neighbors job -- or neighborhood is. The neighborhood has certain concerns. We have concerns beyond that that I'm not going to repeat because I've said it a few times. But let's address those concerns, if we can, before we get to a vote, and that's the direction I'd like to go. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, one more point. Another safeguard in there, it's only 3600 square feet. March 7, 2024 Page 19 of 103 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Let's let Commissioner Klucik go. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Okay. So right now we have 90,000 square feet, and that's the limit, and that would stay the same; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So the 3600 feet could end up being 90,000 square feet -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- if we were to approve this? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It cannot ever get bigger than 3600 square feet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What -- okay. So there's a restriction on the medical facility; it can never be bigger than 3600 square feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Okay. So -- all right. That's interesting. I didn't know that, so that's -- see, that's why it's good to have these discussions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sure staff will confirm that. And then what is -- how about height? Do we have any limits on height? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of course, we do have limits on height. The height limitation is two stories not to exceed 30 feet zoned height. We have 38 feet actual. The worship center shall not exceed a zoned height of 35 feet and actual height of 42 feet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Mr. Yovanovich, you were wanting to say something. Do you want to finish your thought? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, he -- my point was I was emphasizing that it's only 3600 square feet for this not-for-profit medical use. I don't see, even if it became a for-profit medical use, 3600 square feet destroying the community -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- which we can't become, but I'm just saying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What would the other 85,000 square feet be used -- you know, be comprised of? Let's say the owners chose to use all 85,000 remaining square feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have a -- remember -- don't forget we have a trip cap for our trips, okay. We have our worship center, which can't exceed a thousand seats. Within that, we can have a -- we can also have childcare of 200 attendees. We can have a private school not to exceed 450 students. We could have a college and university; must be not-for-profit not to exceed 300 students. We talked -- we could have social services. I won't go through every one of those; there's not a cap on square foot for that. We could have job training; there's not a square feet cap on that. Medical outreach, we do have that; must be not-for-profit. And the medical outreach is basically checking blood pressure, giving flu shots, medical office -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I appreciate -- this helps flesh out. So if you're there, you know, and you're, you know, in Golden Gate Estates and you're driving by on Oil Well Road, then what you're going to see is going to look -- based on what March 7, 2024 Page 20 of 103 you're explaining, it's going to look like a commercial zone, you know, because some of the uses have similar -- you know, they're similar. It sounded -- obviously, you know, we're restricting it. It isn't actually commercial. It's a bunch of services. And, you know, ultimately, I think that's the concern. We're changing this from -- I guess maybe we're not changing it because a lot of this stuff could already happen, so maybe that's an important thing to keep in mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right now it's -- yeah, it can be -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think, very strict -- something very similar to what you're going through now could already be done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right now they have a right to 50,000 commercial. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Yovanovich, talk to me about the athletic fields. Is there going to be a night event there? Are we putting lights up? MR. YOVANOVICH: It stops at 9 p.m., the activities. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So there is going to be -- there is going to be field lighting, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess potentially there could be field lighting, but that's a use that's already allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The second thing is, the schools that are listed, you talk about either public or charter or any type of those type of institutions as long as they're not-for-profit, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. So if I can, just on the schools, we already have the right to do private schools uncapped on the number of students. We've added public schools now with a cap not to exceed 450 students. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Same thing with childcare. We never had a cap. We now imposed a cap of 200 attendees. Those uses are already allowed. Medical office is a new use capped at 3600 square feet. Physical fitness, that's a new use, essential services is a new use, and a post office without a distribution center; those are the new uses. Other than the medical, staff's not objecting to those other proposed new uses. The others were clarifications to existing uses and in some of those instances actually imposing a cap. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know, Mr. Chairman -- just to clarify the record, I don't think we have a right to 50,000 square feet of retail. I think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Am I thinking of the other one? MR. YOVANOVICH: You are, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I am. Livingston. Sorry. Thank you for correcting me. MR. YOVANOVICH: No worries. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Now my mediation hat's coming off. My Type A personality's coming in, and I'm like -- I kind of feel like -- and I'm not trying to March 7, 2024 Page 21 of 103 take control of a situation, but I think the Chairman, if he has concerns, I'd love to hear them after he's contemplated everything that's been said. I don't know that they're gone or not. My reading the room, you're probably going to get this, but you may have one to two people vote against it. I'm not sure. I haven't heard from the staff yet. But I just feel like, let's address the staff concern and the Chairman's concern and get this thing done. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what I'd like to do. So I'd almost call for a recess unless the staff or, Jeff, thinks -- or the Chairman thinks that's a bad idea, and let's fix this thing, after we hear from the Chair or anybody else who has concerns. But I kind of feel like the Chairman's thinking far ahead. He's very prepared. He's articulated it, and if his concerns have been addressed, great. If not, I think we ought to try to address them. That's just my proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a number of additional concerns that I want to express. And I can do that now. And most of them, I think, should be addressed to counsel as opposed to Mr. Mulhere, but you guys can decide. Was there a commercial needs analysis done for food trucks? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And would you -- is it your point of view that 3177 does not require proof of need? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not for an accessory use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does it say that in 3177? MR. YOVANOVICH: I already have -- I already have -- the field is a permitted use. I guarantee you Collier County has done no commercial needs analysis for when they even bring a food truck here let alone a food truck to a county park when it's an accessory use. So, no, I don't believe we're required to do a commercial analysis to have food trucks that will be there to serve the worshipers when they come out of worship services instead of having to have a kitchen in the church. I don't think we have to, as part of an accessory use, do an analysis for food trucks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I still have a problem with that one because I don't know what your source of authority is other than your point of view. And we'll find out what staff has to say, and we may ask the County Attorney as well. But I think it's Subsection J of 3177, sub-subsection, that talks about the need for the GMP change, the need, and I have rested my positions in previous cases on that calling for a needs analysis. And when you don't have a needs analysis, then we can use common sense. And I'm inclined to accept the argument on the need for the medical facility without further proof, but the food trucks are commercial, and they're not just going to serve people coming in and out of church. People are going to drive by and see them. And to me, they're commercial, and to me there's a requirement of a needs analysis. And even if -- even if I like all kinds of aspects of this project -- and I do like a lot of aspects -- I am reluctant to set a precedent. And I realize that we don't have precedence, but just to use that as a practical term for dispensing with the need for a needs analysis when we're going to commercial. I think it's required by the statute, and I think staff pointed that out in the staff report. And I'm just -- I'm not comfortable without such a thing. March 7, 2024 Page 22 of 103 Now, the common-sense thing might work with the medical facilities, but I don't know that it gets you where you want to go on the food trucks. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not suggesting I'll change your mind. I just want to offer a couple of points. Number one, anybody who has a nonresidential piece of land, I think probably even ag zoned, can come in for a temporary-use permit for food trucks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But this is not temporary. This is permanent. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I understand that. I understand that. But that is permitted. So my point is that as an accessory use, there's no way we need to do an analysis for that. And by the way, I take a little -- I disagree with you that that is the sole and sacrosanct and only thing that matters. There are other criteria in the statute, and they are weighted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And they have to do with things like airports and military installations. They are specific. MR. MULHERE: Antiquated subdivisions. There's a lot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Blighted, yeah. MR. MULHERE: We went through it the last time around. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And they don't apply here. The last one, which I believe is J, is one of the few, if not the only, general application provisions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where I'm struggling -- because I disagree with you, but your staff said they believe food truck parks, as an accessory use, is appropriate on this piece of property. I think I can -- I don't think it takes much of a stretch to say after church frequently -- frequently there is a fellowship hour, or they have church dinners, and frequently that is all done through the cooking on a -- in a kitchen that's already associated with the church or it's catered in. I don't think it's unreasonable to say the catering can be done by a food truck park, because it's accessory. I'm not asking for a commercial food truck park. Staff has already made it clear they will not support a commercial food truck park on this piece of property. I'm not asking for that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I would ask -- first of all, I would like Mr. Mulhere to be able to elaborate on his point that he previously made earlier in our discussion where he made the point that he had given, you know, data, I think, on this point. So I'd like him to address that. But I also, as to what Mr. Yovanovich just said, which was -- gosh, now I forgot what it is, but -- regarding the food trucks, when it's an accessory use, what does that actually allow? Like, you know, you said -- well, it can't be -- you know, it can't be a food truck park or whatever. So as an accessory use, can you have a food truck there every day? Can you have a food truck there, you know, two hours a day? What does that mean? What is the meaningfulness of the limitation to say that it's an accessory use? MR. MULHERE: An accessory use has to be subservient to a principal use, and there are a whole number of principal uses. And right now, in operation is the athletic fields with restroom facilities, and that's a principal use. So a food truck park could be an March 7, 2024 Page 23 of 103 accessory use to that principal use. We have agreed to limit -- well, those aren't built yet, but -- the medical office, those are not constructed, but those would also be principal uses. We have agreed to limit it to the same operating hours as the athletic fields, which is 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Now, I'm not saying they're always going to be there, but that is a way of putting an overall limitation on that accessory use. It's tied to the principal use. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So the meaningfulness of it might seem -- there's a -- the meaningfulness seems somewhat limited in that extent only because, like you said, it could be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. That's -- most food trucks, they don't -- you know, they don't really work much beyond those hours. So it seems like you could always have a food truck there as long as you're using -- you know, it seems -- as long as the field is in use or as long as the church is open or as long as the medical facility is open or as long as the daycare -- right? Is that right? As long as any of those things -- it has to be in tandem with the operation of any of the other permitted uses? MR. MULHERE: Yes. That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So in other words, anytime anything is going on there, you could have a food truck there, which sounds like, you know, pretty broad leeway. So I guess -- I'm not against the idea of a food truck. All I'm saying is the meaningfulness of accessory in this situation doesn't seem to mean much. You know, you can't chew on that meaningfulness very much. And I hope you understand the point I'm making. And then I appreciate, Mr. Mulhere, if you would explain -- you know, you had a good use of umbrage earlier. Explain your umbrage -- MR. MULHERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and what you offered, and then I'd like to hear why staff says that doesn't -- you know, why that's not adequate. MR. MULHERE: Sure. I took umbrage not with any analysis related to the food truck parks. By the way, you have two divergent or different recommendations with respect to food truck parks. One recommendation -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, but this is -- this is on the needs analysis, I believe. MR. MULHERE: Right. But I thought you asked me if that related to the food truck park issue. My comment did not relate to the food truck park issue. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. I was doing two separate issues. I did the food truck accessory use, and now I'm going back to what Mr. Yovanovich was discussing as well as what you mentioned. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I believe they're the same issue. It was also what Mr. Chairman was concerned about, and that is, has there been a -- you know, a needs analysis -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- for these uses? MR. MULHERE: Yes. So data and analysis, generally, is what constitutes a response to the needs analysis. Florida Statute 163.3177(6)(a)(2) states that the Future Land Use Plan and plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies, data regarding the March 7, 2024 Page 24 of 103 area as applicable, including the amount of land to accommodate anticipated growth; the character of the undeveloped land; the ability to have public facilities; the need for redevelopment, including blighted -- that doesn't apply here -- compatibility of uses on adjacent lands or close proximity -- or close proximity to military, so you have two points there. They're not necessarily related, compatibility and proximity. Two separate issues. The next one is about airports; it doesn't apply. Discouragement of urban sprawl does apply. The need for job creation, capital investment, economic development, and need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions, which Golden Gate Estates qualifies as an antiquated subdivision and a single-use subdivision. So I took umbrage because the statement was made that after five requests we didn't provide data and analysis. The TIS is data and analysis. Any environmental assessment is data and analysis. The county requires us to assess the criteria by which a rezone may be approved. That's data and analysis by a professional planner. In addition to all of those forms of data and analysis, we provided -- why is this not working? I'm not sure what's going on here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What I think we're wanting you to address is the point that staff made. And to this point I agree with them, but I'm going to keep an open mind and hear what you have to say. MR. MULHERE: I'm getting there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But staff makes the point, quote, no data and analysis were provided to demonstrate that the uses are needed in this area, closed quote. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I want to hear competent substantial evidence to refute. MR. MULHERE: All right. So -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And let me finish. I think you've managed to persuade me, at least, as one voter, that the common-sense aspect of the health facilities, we can accept that as a need. But these food trucks, we don't know any relationship. There may be no relationship whatsoever with the church, and certainly people are going to drive by who have no relationship to the church and are going to patronize them as long as they can. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than a commercial use and, therefore, I'd like to know where the need is. MR. MULHERE: I understand. In response, though, to Commissioner Klucik's question, I didn't think that -- and I thought you just clarified it wasn't necessarily tied strictly to the food truck. I'm trying to respond to his question, and perhaps maybe I misunderstood your question. You talked about why I took umbrage and what was my data and analysis, yes? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're talking about Mr. Schumacher or Mr. Klucik? MR. YOVANOVICH: He's looking at his normally empty seat. MR. MULHERE: I'm looking at his empty seat. I'm sorry. I've got to point somewhere. He's not here, okay. Anyway... COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: He's just saying -- MR. MULHERE: I'm thinking you're here. In my mind, you're sitting in that chair. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Two distinct issues. The one is, obviously, the March 7, 2024 Page 25 of 103 food trucks. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But the point that, you know, our chairman has asked about, and I would like to target it -- MR. MULHERE: So separate -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- is the data for the needs of any of this -- you know, like, the needs analysis -- like, I'm convinced as well on the medical. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So as to food trucks, yeah. As to any of the -- you know, any of the expansion, what -- has there been a needs analysis? And, really, the only reason I brought it up is to give you a chance to highlight the point you made so that we didn't overlook it. MR. MULHERE: Yes. And I'm still trying to get to that. So, yeah, I appreciate -- I appreciate that. I forgot to mention that we also did an analysis of, you know, public facilities, which is required, which is data and analysis. Now, specific to the uses, what's on the screen right now is a -- dated 4/19/2023, additional information in our -- in our justification and supplemental information. We specifically talk in there about the location of these facilities, which are located in Golden Gate City 16 miles from the subdistrict, in Immokalee, 17 miles from the subdistrict. So that is data and analysis from a professional source. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That doesn't address the question of the food trucks. MR. MULHERE: Okay. We're just talking about -- I must have misunderstood the question. That's not addressed in here as an accessory use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And, Commissioners, we never do data and analysis on accessory uses. That's a fact. Ask your staff. So -- but, look, do you really think we're asking for up to four food trucks as a money maker for the church? No. The church is doing this because they've talked to people. And if you want, I'll have Mr. Isaacson get up here in the record and say who he's talked to and why the community wants the food trucks. Will that help the record? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The record is going to be what it is after -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have Mr. Isaacson come up and explain. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, not right now you're not, because I want to talk about this. And, certainly, he'll have his opportunity to say whatever he wants. But I want to just be sure that the question is clarified. Staff has already said, quote, no data and analysis were provided to demonstrate that the uses are needed in this area. Now -- let me finish. I am persuaded on the health facilities. So to me the common sense supports that, but I cannot get to the food trucks on common sense because that's going to be wide open to the public. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to -- I'm going to speak for staff, and Mike will correct me if I'm wrong. That was with the food truck being a principal permitted use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that comes back to your point that accessory uses are different. And can you cite any source of authority? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, because I'm not allowed to have that use unless I have the principal use. I do data and analysis on a principal primary use within the PUD. March 7, 2024 Page 26 of 103 I do not do it -- I didn't do data and analysis for any church that also has a parking lot or has a ball field. You do a data and analysis on the church and the principal uses. I didn't do data and analysis on any church I've ever done that also included a fellowship hall. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, these -- the things you mentioned are not commercial. The food trucks are. Ballpark's not a commercial activity. And I'm going to short-circuit this, because I don't want to waste people's time. And I'm going to ask the County Attorney, do we inquire about the commercial nature of accessory uses, or is that off limits? MR. KLATZKOW: It's not off limits, but I defer to Mr. Bosi, who's, by the LDC, the interpreter of the LDC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As we had recommended within our -- within our staff report, if we have this as an accessory use, we don't believe that a needs analysis goes into that. What I would say is, every ball field that I've ever been to, attended either as a participant or as an observer, has a concession stand. Well, they're not providing a concession stand. They want to provide food trucks as the alternative to concession stands associated with a park, with a ball field. That's something that's customary, accessory. I do agree that the -- for food truck -- (Cell phone ringing.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm turning it off. It keeps on getting -- MR. BOSI: Four food trucks as accessory to the ball field to the church can draw people outside of the athletic fields. But staff as, an accessory use, would not require a needs analysis. And also related to Mr. Mulhere's statement -- and I do understand the finer points where he said staff did not agree with what they supplied satisfied the needs analysis required. What Mr. Mulhere was supplying was the location of where these community facilities -- or these nonprofit medical facilities were. We recognize that they were 16 and 15 miles away, but we said there's 4 million square feet of commercial opportunity already available. It's not a "needs" that would generate the -- generate the need for this nonprofit medical facility. That's a market failure. The market just hasn't responded to it, and they're providing -- they want to provide the opportunity to respond to it. But there is adequate square footage for the market to respond to it now if they wanted to. They just haven't. So there's a difference within the needs. We said, how could we justify the specifics of this location with the availability of square footage in close proximity that could accommodate this medical facility? They never provided anything that satisfied that, and that's where the difference is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. And I personally have moved off the medical facility. MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But, again, on the food trucks, the analogy -- and, I mean, I realize yours is the official last word of the county, and I respect that, and we'll follow it. I just want to be sure that I understand completely, because the example you gave of a March 7, 2024 Page 27 of 103 concession stand at a ball field, that's not going to pull anybody off the roads, but the food trucks are going to pull people off of the roads because they're going to see it, and it's not going to be limited -- it's not going to be just accessory to the church and the other activities there. MR. KLATZKOW: Whether it's accessory or not, it's a commercial use, and they're asking for it in your Comprehensive Plan. If they thought they could do it as of right as an accessory, they wouldn't be putting it in the Comprehensive Plan. So it's up to this board to determine whether you want to recommend that or not. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me -- Mr. Klucik, let me finish with the County Attorney, because I want to be sure I understand. So it's fair for us to look at the commercial nature of this and to ask for proof of need even though it is an accessory use in a CFPUD? MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I've sat in front of the Planning Commission for close to 18 years, not recently, but close to 18 years. And when it came to the Golden Gate Estates, for most of those 18 years commercial was forbidden. Getting a church in Golden Gate Estates was extremely difficult and, lately, we've expanded to just let commercial in just because. And that's fine. But if we're going to start moving this way, we're going to be commercializing the Estates. And let's be honest about it and change the master plan for the Estates. MR. YOVANOVICH: When do I get to talk? CHAIRMAN FRYER: In a moment. Commissioner Klucik, do you have something on this subject? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So would we be -- you know, would we be, you know, able to put a cap on the accessory use as far as, you know, the number of -- maximum number of hours in a week or in a day? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The answer to that is yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Or the number of trucks, you know, I mean, at a time, at any given time? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can do all of that, and another thing we could do is ask that it not be positioned so as to be an attractor to just members of the general public. If it really is accessory to the principal uses, we can do all those things. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And as to Commissioner Vernon, you know, his mediation suggestion, maybe that's the kind of thing -- you know, I don't want to put the petitioner on the spot where they -- you know, they have to all of a sudden decide, oh, you know -- I would like there to be -- you know, them to have, you know, a few minutes to think about it, because that -- you know, obviously having a broad accessory use versus having a limitation, I'd like them -- if they think a limitation works, then great, you know, and then maybe get together and take a little break for them to come up with what they think, you know, the limitations could be acceptable. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Who said "can I"? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. Can I talk now? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've got two commissioners, but if it's directly March 7, 2024 Page 28 of 103 responsive to what we're talking about. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, we can delete food trucks from the GMP language. That can come out. We don't need them, because we're an accessory use now. And that's what I envisioned would happen when we agreed that they would be accessory. So I can't come back later and now say, under the Growth Management Plan I'm entitled to ask for a commercial food truck park. Take it out. Now it's clear food truck parks are accessory to the uses that are in the PUD where there already are hours of operation in there and safeguards in there. And then most food truck parks, which we're not asking for, is the trucks stay. These are trucks that, literally, are coming there and then leaving; they're the traditional food truck that are not becoming permanent facilities at this property, and there are hours of operation -- hours of operation, and we're capped at four. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There are places in your application that refer to it as temporary, which I thought was misleading. It's permanent with limited hours. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. They've got to drive away. That is no -- you go -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not temporary. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, it absolutely is. You go look at every other food truck park, and they're not moving. They're not moving. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. So as a -- as -- outside of this board, I also sit on the Naples Cal Ripken Youth basketball league, and I can tell you that food trucks are a needed thing. After COVID, when we lost our concession stand, we couldn't do concessions anymore. The food trucks facilitated a need not only for concessions but also, a kid gets hit with a baseball, there's a bag of ice, so on and so forth. So they do -- they do serve a greater purpose. Also, as a coach in that baseball league, I can tell you I'm very thankful that they're there because spending four hours at a baseball field with nothing to eat is pretentious [sic]. Now, also, as a flag football coach on Friday nights, I can tell you the food trucks that are at North Collier, there's only three of them, and they're out of there before the last game is done at 9:30. I understand the Chair's concern, which would also be my concern, is if you were driving down the road and you see four food trucks, you pull in, and you grab something to eat. Now it's become you're servicing outside of the boundaries of that property. I don't think that would be the case if the food trucks are limited to sporting events and church services. I can tell you nobody comes off the street to North Collier to get something from one of those food trucks on a Friday night, because there's no parking, which I would envision seeing here as well. If there's multiple sporting events going on in those fields, it's not advantageous to duck off that road and go to the food truck because it is going to be temporary in nature, in which that they leave before the end of the event. One other question I did have for Mr. Yovanovich is -- I'm going back to the schools because when I was looking at the last 12 or 14 years of uses here, I didn't see that spelled out that there was allowed to have a school on that property, public or charter. Is that new to this petition now, or has that always been in there? Because I didn't see it March 7, 2024 Page 29 of 103 listed underneath that historical -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- timeline. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if you look at the PUD on page -- sorry. If you look at Page 1 of 15 in the PUD, which is Exhibit A, it previously said private schools. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Private schools. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we added "or public" -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Or public. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and we capped it not to exceed 450 students. Prior to that it was private schools. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Prior to that it was private, okay. I just wanted that clarification. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Where -- and I should know this, but I didn't have a chance to look at anything. Where -- if you know, where on the property will the concessions be? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be in the parking lot near the existing -- where's the master plan? I'm sorry. I'll have Bob come up here. Oh, what happened to the -- someone changed things on me. Show them where. MR. MULHERE: So this is -- I can try to make that a little bigger. Just a second. This is the parking area to support the athletic fields. It will also be a parking area to support other activities as they -- as they, you know, come to the site. So in this area here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Will they be -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is the plan -- you know what I'm going to ask, don't you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is the plan for them to be visible -- easily visible from the road with signage or not and -- and second question is, even if that's not your plan, under what we're about to approve, could you slam them in front of Oil Well Road and put lights and flashing lights to get people to come in? Because I think that's the -- that's -- as a practical matter, that's a concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we agree not to advertise them? I don't think we're going to put food truck park -- "Food trucks, enter here" on Oil Well Road. Now, it's an open field, Commissioner, so am I going to tell you they can be seen? Yes, they can be seen. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I mean, I'm going back to playing Little League baseball in my hometown, but, you know, there was always a concession stand, you know, and it was exactly as Mr. Schumacher said. But I would never ever in my entire life drive there for a meal. Never. So if I've got to drive into, and it takes me five minutes to get there and I can't really see it from the road unless I look real hard, that's different from neon signs saying, "Food trucks are here." MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not going to -- hold on a second. I need to -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: You understand the question? Take your time. March 7, 2024 Page 30 of 103 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get in when there's a break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We are going to go to a midmorning break at this time, which is seven minutes early, but that way we can -- the discussions can take place. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I ask my other question, and after the break he can -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here's the second question I have. Before Mr. Schumacher had his questions and comments, you said something about we're willing to make, no pun intended, a concession here. And so I didn't fully understand your concession. So when you come back, if you could elaborate on that. You said, we'll just take it out, we don't need it in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, in the GMPA. COMMISSIONER VERNON: We're going to take a break now, but when we come back, if you could elaborate on that for me as well as you understand my question about -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- neon signs and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Got it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's being proposed -- and maybe this will change during discussion, but it's being proposed that they take it out of the GMP but not the PUD. So it would be in the PUD as an accessory use. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. I just want to get sort of -- I want to have a discussion with him about it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's 10:24. We're going to take our midmorning recess, and we'll be back in 10 minutes at 10:34. In recess. (A brief recess was had from 10:24 a.m. to 10:34 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's go back in session. I have a number of questions, but I traditionally go last. And so no one is signaling at this point, and I'm really not sure whether Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Mulhere have finished their presentation. So we've got those things ahead of us. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We haven't heard from the county, from staff yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That too, yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I can jump in, we left it with me having questions that you said let's take a break before they got answers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon, and then Commissioner Klucik after that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd like to start there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. So -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's have Commissioner Vernon's question. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I remember them. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think he remembers them, but I'll say them again, just so everybody knows. Where will the concession stands be, the plan, and, number March 7, 2024 Page 31 of 103 two, where can they be to address future owners/operators who may change their mind? And a practical point is if they're hard to see from the road and you're not marketing to drivers-by, there's less chance that you're going to have a food-park-type operation. And then the second question was just sort of elaborate a little bit on the -- again, no pun intended -- "concession" you offered to make right before Mr. Schumacher's comments. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'll deal with that first, and then I'll let Bob take you through the location of the food trucks. As currently in your packet, an allowed permitted use under the Growth Management Plan would include food trucks. So I think that's in response to what Mr. Klatzkow said is, obviously, they want this to be a permitted use. That's why they have it in the Growth Management Plan. I think that's what he said. That's what I interpreted him to say. If we delete that from the Growth Management Plan, I have no legal basis to come back and ask for food trucks as a permitted use on this property. That's -- because originally I wanted it as a permitted use. My client wanted it as a permitted use. We've agreed it will be accessory. Now, the PUD will make it very clear that the food trucks are an accessory use to the operations on the property. So that is a very significant change from what we originally proposed to staff, what we originally said to the neighbors that were at the neighborhood information meeting and originally asked for. So now it's clear it will be accessory and can never become a stand-alone commercial use. It would be, one, inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan but, two, also inconsistent with the PUD zoning on the property. So that's what I was saying was the, quote, "concession." Now, with regard to where they will be located, we have an exhibit to show you where they will be located on the property. MR. MULHERE: I've got to use this. There used to be a portable one. I don't know whatever happened to it. This is in your packet, but you'd have to have super-human eyesight to be able to decipher it. I've enlarged it and, of course, it loses some clarity when you enlarge it. But -- so this is Oil Well right here, and there is a 75-foot -- that dashed line is a 75-foot setback, Estates setback, and there's a 20-foot Type D buffer that's required along Oil Well within the 75 feet. This little notation right here talks about a worship center, a future worship center. This little notation here says "food truck parking." So, you know, in terms of what the intention is at that point in time, if it was to serve some worship activity, then the food truck park -- food trucks might be located right here. If it was to serve the athletic fields primarily, they could be located right long here. But those are approximately -- this is a 75-foot buffer and, I don't know, about another 50 feet or so. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And you're limited to four food trucks? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Four, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And just from an operational standpoint, we're obviously not going to advertise the food trucks to try to entice them to come into the site just for the food trucks. We're not going to advertise them as a food truck park. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. March 7, 2024 Page 32 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Yes, a question. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? MS. LOCKHART: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we have Ms. Lockhart go first? She hasn't had a chance yet to go. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. LOCKHART: Real quick. The pre-K, is it for the church-only use or is it for general population? MR. YOVANOVICH: The childcare services? MS. LOCKHART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is a general. MS. LOCKHART: General. And I just want to express appreciation and gratitude. We have pre-Ks at some of our schools. They are when there's space available. So this is -- this is much needed, as our schools continue to grow and increase enrollments. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Commissioner Klucik, and then Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So -- I'm sorry, I scrolled down to that graphic that you just had. I've got to scroll back up to where my question -- I highlighted my question. Okay. So if we're on Packet Page 714, which is 9. -- it's Page 3 towards the very beginning of the packet, and the summary of the specific changes to the uses include -- and I just want to, you know, make sure that I'm understanding this right. So the first one says "elimination of the existing requirement that medical be nonprofit," and I'm concerned about that, so -- because you said all -- you said everything -- you said childcare, private and public schools, and medical outreach all had to be nonprofit. I understand maybe they no longer have to be nonprofit and affiliated with the church, but where is the requirement that they still have to be nonprofit? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it shouldn't have been. We should never have struck through "must be not-for-profit" for the medical. MR. MULHERE: It's in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know it's in the PUD, Bob, but they need to be consistent. MR. MULHERE: I thought we were taking it out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's food truck. MR. YOVANOVICH: Medical. Okay. Commissioner Klucik, that's a good catch, and it's a good catch by staff. We need to put that "must be not-for-profit" back in the GMP. It is in the PUD. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Good, you agree with me. I just want to say that, you know, just generally speaking, I do think this is great. I think everything that's proposed here is -- you know, is -- you know, if it was up to me and I just was, like, waving a wand, I would say, wow, this is good stuff, and I would probably just say, yes, please do it. But, obviously, you know, my role here is, as a planning March 7, 2024 Page 33 of 103 commissioner, not to do -- you know, not to make happen what I like. And I want that to be clear because, obviously, I've given you -- you know, I mean, I've been very, very persistent in making sure we drill down on some of the concerns that I have, and I just want the petitioner to know that I really do appreciate what -- you know, what it appears that this is all about. And I do think this is providing services that the community will appreciate and probably needs. And, you know, I'm looking favorably toward it. You know, the one issue I have is just I still think we need to have some sort of restrictions on how -- you know, the maximum hours and the number of food trucks. You know, something along that line would make me feel a lot more comfortable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rich, I'm just looking for affirmation of just -- and I'm going to follow up what Commissioner Klucik talked about. Number one, it's 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. are the operating hours, up to four food trucks, but they're only out there if there's business. I mean, they're not going to pull up there at 7 in the morning and just sit there when nothing's happening. I guess they could, but if they're running a food truck, they're only going to be there if there's perceived business. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's up to four. It doesn't mean there's four all the time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and there's activities throughout the day. Just so -- you know, it's hard to say, you know -- but, yes, the answer is I can't imagine that someone thinks that this is going to be their breakfast place to make a buck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It's -- this is not a -- well, a 7 to 5, seven days a week. There may be activities between the church or whatever, but the food trucks are only there if -- and I've got to use the word "business" that could be generated from selling of the product. They're not -- just not going to go sit there, I would assume, anyway, because they would certainly go to other spots. So I just want to make sure that that -- at least that's my understanding, and that's on the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And just to clarify the hours, because the PUD is 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. The extra hour is on Friday and Saturday to give 7 to 9. So it's not 7 to 9 seven days a week. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to just bring up another issue that's important. I'm going to it. It was the requirement for the agreement with the -- an interim facilities/systems agreement for potable water facilities and wastewater. That would be an agreement that would be required to fulfill that agreement if and when utilities are out in that area, and then they would be required. But up to now, as we discussed, this could either be a septic or a small package plant if -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- they deem warranted or the construction or the requirement, deem it appropriate. Because we talked about porta-potties on site. But if there are facilities within the church, there would be a package plant or a septic, but -- March 7, 2024 Page 34 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be required, until the county gets there, to provide our own water and sewer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. But at some time, if the county does require, you will be required to connect, and you'll be subject to impact fees like anybody else on the connection requirement. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why the county requires this interim agreement so we -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- acknowledge in advance that we have to connect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just want to make sure that's on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. No one is signaling, so I'm going to take this as my cue, unless you want to say something further before I do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't feel a need. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, just one follow-up on Commissioner Schmitt. So you mentioned this previously, Mr. Yovanovich, and I would just like clarification. What language would require the food trucks to actually leave and not just sit there on a -- you know, even though they're not operating -- you know, they're operating only in the hours that are listed, what would require them to actually leave? MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, "Shall not be permanently located within this PUD" under "other." Page 15 of 15 of the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that's different from saying they shall leave at night. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. How about they can only be present between those hours that we've established? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you okay with that? MR. ISAACSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that's great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've got a number of issues. Some of this have been touched on tangentially, so it may seem repetitious, but I don't mean it to. First of all, I'll start with the porta-potties because that was referenced. Those are not going to disappear at night. The porta-potties will be there indefinitely, correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Until permanent facilities are constructed, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Now, in the staff report, we have the following language, and I'll read it and then ask you to comment on it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which staff report? CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is the staff report on the GMPA. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it comes from Page 717 of the agenda packet. And I'm going to be excerpting, so I'm not going to read the whole thing. It says, "Based on allowances in the GMP, staff has determined that the GMP currently allows over 4 million square feet of commercial uses within the area from March 7, 2024 Page 35 of 103 Immokalee Road/Randall curve to the SRAs to the east. The CCPC has stated that a determination of need is a critical component of a GMPA." And then the staff report goes on with three bullet points, and the third bullet point, which I've read before, I'm going to read it again, "No data and analysis were provided to demonstrate that the uses are needed in this area." And I will interject that, at least for my purposes, I'm satisfied based on the common-sense rule that we're okay on the medical services, but I'm still not at all satisfied about the food trucks. And to me, there would need to be a needs analysis for the commercial uses, and you can call them accessory uses if you want. And Mr. Bosi's interpretation analogizes to a concession stand at a baseball field or a sports field. Now, that is clearly situated so it's not going to draw people coming off of Oil Well Road. But the way -- the way that this is set up, it's quite the contrary, and that -- and the concession stand at the sports field is not at all analogous to the food trucks which are going to be in plain view of people driving along Oil Well. And I submit to you that unless there were more restrictions and restraints to make this look more like Mr. Bosi's analogy, that it really is a commercial activity. You can call it accessory if you want, but you're going to freely sell to people on the street. To me, it's a commercial activity, and there's just no -- I don't see a way around that. Again, quoting from the staff report, "A lack of demonstrated need and an existing sufficient supply of commercial square footage available in the northern Collier County area, Comprehensive Planning staff does not support the incorporation of commercial uses of medical health clinics and food trucks," and I'm concerned about the latter one, "into the community facilities subdistrict, these commercial uses are proposed as principal uses within the subdistrict which would allow the development of these commercial uses before construction of operation." I understand that you're not asking now for permitted use, but the -- but the key here is the nature of the use, not what you call it. And to my way of thinking, if it is a commercial use and it's going to -- it's going to be visible to and accessible by the public -- and, again, common sense would indicate that people from the public are going to stop by and patronize those facilities. They're commercial in nature, and we need a needs analysis, and we do not have a needs analysis, and I find that very disturbing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the staff findings and conclusions go on. "The petition does not contain sufficient data to demonstrate need for commercial activities at this location. A demonstration of need for the additional uses proposed was requested by staff at the pre-application conference in 2020 as well as through each of the five review cycles that have occurred over the last four years." That information has not been provided. And I understand your point of view on health facilities, so don't bring that up. I agree with you on that one. I'm concerned about food trucks. The information has not been provided except as noted in this report, i.e., establishing a sense of community in providing a public place for community engagement. Next bullet point, "Staff does not support the inclusion of commercial activities of food trucks into the community facilities subdistrict and recommends that those uses be removed from the subdistrict." Not that they be converted to accessory, but that they be removed. These are public-utility-related concerns, also lack of available infrastructure, March 7, 2024 Page 36 of 103 which I'm not so concerned about because there are going to be hookup requirements down the road, but that is a near-term concern. "The lack of public water and sewer will result in a construction and utilization of interim well and septic facilities for development of the site. The existing development uses porta-potties proposed to continue if food trucks are allowed." So I've put a lot out there, but these are the essential questions that I would like to have answered. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. And I'd be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Competent substantial evidence would. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: May I respond, please? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- quickly, if it's a point of order. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, it's a -- I just have another point based on what you said that I think is relevant, and it will be helpful for the petitioner's answer as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that is, you know, regarding advertising, I understand that they said they're not going to advertise the food trucks, but I know, just from my community, the social media really follows where these food trucks are. And so just because there won't be advertising doesn't mean there won't be everybody, you know, talking about where the food trucks are. So there will be a draw from outside, especially if there's a regular appearance, you know. And so the concern -- I understand, you know, that your goal -- the petitioner's goal is not to have a food truck park, but it's hard to -- you know, to think that with the location being so visible as well as, you know, people discussing this, the general public discussing it, there will be a lot of outside traffic that really doesn't have anything to do with the activities that are, you know, being put on at that location otherwise as -- so it wouldn't necessarily always be accessory. That's the concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And with that, I'm going to endeavor to give you uninterrupted time, because I've put a lot in front of you. So go ahead, as long as you stick to the subjects that I've raised, please -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Food truck park. I'm happy to just talk about food trucks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You read from the Growth Management Plan amendment staff report, and they said take it out. They don't want it in the Growth Management Plan. I think I said we'll take it out. What they also said -- what you didn't read from was the staff report for the PUD where staff said, the proposed principal food truck land use shall become an accessory land use, and their operating hours shall be limited to that of the operating principal land use within the subject PUD. So when you read the two together, we're on the same page as staff. We took it out of the Growth Management Plan amendment, and we're moving into the PUD from a principal use to an accessory use. Staff did not want a food truck -- food trucks to be a permitted principal use because they said we didn't provide data and analysis. I'm not fighting it. I disagree. But it's irrelevant to the conversation because we did exactly what staff asked us to do: Take it out of the GMPA and move it in the PUD to accessory use. March 7, 2024 Page 37 of 103 So I'm never going to convince you, in my opinion, which is fine -- you know, I get dug into. I'm never going to convince you, I believe, that I don't have to do data and analysis for an accessory use to a principal use. I don't think I'm legally required to do that. Mr. Bosi has agreed that I'm not required to do that. So I think we actually are consistent with your staff -- what your staff is requesting. I haven't heard yet whether they're comfortable with the medical, but I'm not going to redo that because I think you all are comfortable with the medical, that we've provided data and analysis on that. But we are in lockstep right now with your staff recommendation, because if I really wanted that to be a principal use, I'd be up here fighting like cats and dogs for that to stay a principal use, and I'd show you and disagree vehemently -- or what was your words, Bob -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Umbrage. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- take umbrage with staff's statement that we didn't provide data and analysis on the food truck issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to have to say that you've persuaded me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh. Close enough. I don't want to take it away. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Don't get too overconfident here, but you're right, I was reading out of the GMPA, and you're absolutely right. So I stand corrected. Thank you. But I ain't done. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. A boy could hope. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. Is there -- is there any room on the part of your client to agree to make food trucks less visible, not completely invisible but less visible to Oil Well Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- other than we already have a buffer and we're 75 feet set back, we're not putting signs out on the road that says, you know, food trucks -- like you commonly see people try to do that. We're not doing any of that. I don't know what more to do to make them less visible. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you put the -- I guess it was a master plan -- back on the screen. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. But can we look at the aerial first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Just because I think we need to put it in context, because it's basically a property devoid of vegetation. Fair? MR. ISAACSON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So now -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that's not what I wanted to be put on there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We've seen that. Now can we see the master -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Here we go. Now, where Mr. Mulhere was showing that the food trucks could go in the area that's marked "2," that's a very, very large area and extends, really, almost all the way to March 7, 2024 Page 38 of 103 Oil Well. If, indeed, you're focused on serving the athletic fields primarily and the church services primarily, why wouldn't you be willing to agree to move that area south to about the northern point of the conceptual worship center location? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I jump in just for a second? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You don't mean move it, because there's a lake there. You mean make it smaller? Just chop off the top part of it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you saying, basically, you want it to be about where the 2 is? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm going to make up a distance. Let's say that's a minimum of 250 feet; does that sound about right? MR. MULHERE: It's probably less. Let me just show you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the scale. I thought we'd put a distance number in there. MR. MULHERE: This is 75 feet. This is 75 feet. So to come to this point here is about -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's about 200 feet. MR. MULHERE: -- 200. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two hundred feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: So could we have a setback of 175 feet and give me 25 feet of room for error? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. Let me get to -- just be sure we have concepts before we go to numbers. I'm looking at the area that would be an extension of the southern border of the fields. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Extension east, yes. That line there, yeah. Could -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The field's right here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: The field's right here, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm -- that's what I'm looking for. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what -- I think that's about -- the answer is we'll come up with -- we'll scale the number, but I think that's probably about 175 feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think if you put a number in there, it's easier. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's probably close to 200 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the number. I don't want to -- I don't want to say one number and be wrong, but I get the concept. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- so we can agree that they would be south of that line? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And we can agree that there would be no signage visible from Oil Well? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. March 7, 2024 Page 39 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, again, as we used to call them back in the day as the Code Enforcement, the snipe signs. You can't put any of those out it that's not -- it would be a code violation anyway if they even put a sign out there that said food truck without the -- without it being expressly allowed by the PUD, you can't put the sign up. MR. BOSI: Those are prohibited by our code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right, prohibited by code. MR. BOSI: As an accessory use, they wouldn't -- we wouldn't allow for advertising for an accessory use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'm still looking here. Oh, I do have some questions about uses. And so you've got additions of the following uses: Nonprofit colleges and universities, but they need not be affiliated with the church, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I got distracted. Which one? Are you in the PUD? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nonprofit colleges and churches are not necessarily affiliated with the church? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Expanding medical outreach, we've talked that one, I think, fully. Nonprofit job training and rehab services, nonprofit physical fitness facilities affiliated with the church. Well, I mean, that's fine, but it makes me question your logic of why some things are affiliated and some aren't. Is there a logical basis for this? And if so, what is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to phone a friend. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think originally we had "affiliated with the church" on a number of uses. Maybe we just didn't simply strike through this. It's not necessary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I don't want you to strike it. Oh, okay. So you're saying it was left in inadvertently? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Okay. MR. MULHERE: No, no. The -- we had -- we had the "with a church or place of worship" or in other places we had "affiliated with." I just think that was a holdover from -- you know, once, as Howard explained, why they didn't want to use the "affiliated with a church" language, I mean, that would apply here as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I want to leave that language in. You're not proposing to take it out now, are you? MR. MULHERE: Not if you want to leave it in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to leave it in because -- you know, if you go back and look at 2005, I think, was the year when this CFPUD was established, you read that, and you come away with a thought that church affiliation was important. It was important to the folks who approved that. I'm not saying that it has to be, therefore, immutable and never changed, but the farther away you move from "church affiliated" the farther away you move from the original intent of the people who established this community facilities PUD, so that's why I want to leave it in. MR. MULHERE: Okay. March 7, 2024 Page 40 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And staff said it well -- again, this is the GMPA, staff. But it said, "The existing mission subdistrict is primarily a church development with ancillary community services to provide social services and education to the rural population in the area." So that was the original intent. And you've agreed to move the -- move the food trucks back so it makes it easier for me to accept this as an accessory use. It makes it more like the analogy that Mr. Bosi raised of the concession stand at the football field. This way you're going to have the food trucks in between the football field -- or the sports field and the house of worship, which, I think, makes Mr. Bosi's interpretation apt. And so the porta-potties are going to -- they could be around for a long time, could they not? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're there now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. But they could be around for a long time? MR. YOVANOVICH: They could be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the advantage, I guess, from the standpoint of the community's interest, by relegating this or demoting it from a GMP permitted use to a PUD accessory use would be, perhaps -- and I know we don't use the word "precedential" -- we don't, but as a practical matter people think about setting precedents, and as an accessory use -- and we can cover this when we have the staff report, but I suppose that it is -- it's less of an opening the gate, opening the flood gate by doing it this way. And, I mean, I accept that logic. When I get down here to the uses, I do have -- okay. Here we go. Use 8299, which -- and this refers to public -- it says, "Private or public schools not to exceed 450 students." You've struck out "not-for-profit." Does that -- and you also struck out not church-affiliated. Do you insist upon striking not-for-profit? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what Collier County Public Schools is. I don't know if they're considered a not-for-profit, so I don't want to get in the middle of that. Private -- private school, whether it's for profit or not, does it really matter? Because it's still an educational mission. I mean, I know there are some higher education institutions that are for-profit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: True. MR. YOVANOVICH: And most, I think, are not-for-profit, but I think some are for-profit, and I don't know why it should really matter if it's an educational facility. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask Ms. Lockhart. What is your take on -- should it be -- should it say "private not-for-profit" or "public schools" or just "private or public"? Does the school district care? MS. LOCKHART: The school district doesn't have an opinion on that, no. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then I'll withdraw it. Then colleges and universities must be not-for-profit, which I think is odd. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Another odd juxtaposition why -- you know, why -- and you added "must be not-for-profit." That's new language. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where? Where are we talking about? Which one are we on? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Colleges and universities. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, under use 8221. March 7, 2024 Page 41 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's just a non-sequitur to me. I mean, there's no -- there's no logical way that I know of -- maybe you do -- why you would want -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what we were trying to distinguish between -- a private school, probably a bad example because I'm pretty sure they're not-for-profit but it's basically high school and down you have -- you have the Community School, you've got Seacrest, and you have others. Why would -- I think we're -- that's the distinguishing factor is one is high school and below, and then colleges and university. That's the distinction we make as to not-for-profit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To me that's a distinction without a difference, but I'm not going to quibble with you because it is what it is. Should I -- okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: As long as you're good with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you don't mind, I've got a few more, and then -- okay. Under medical office, use 8011, SIC Code 8011, this include psychiatric, psychoanalysis, addictions, halfway houses. Are those uses that you need to have in there? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I was -- I got distracted by my client. What was the question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Use 8011, SIC Code 8011, under medical offices, which is No. 8, that SIC code includes psychiatric, psychoanalysis, addiction recovery, halfway houses. Do you need that? MR. ISAACSON: Halfway houses -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come on up if you're going to talk, and state your name. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think -- we don't need a halfway house. But, I mean, are you worried about psychiatric counseling if someone were to come there because they need to see a psychiatrist? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm personally not worried at all. I just want the record to show that we considered it and talked about it and there were no concerns expressed either way. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can take out halfway houses. What was the other? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Psychoanalysis and addictions and psychiatric. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Come up and explain it instead of me paraphrasing it for you. MR. ISAACSON: Yeah, thank you very much. Howard Isaacson. The thought there is that if, for example, St. Matthew's House, which operates day programs in addition to their overnight, but they operate day programs. If they wanted to extend their services out to the northern Golden Gate Estates, we wanted to provide them a pathway through this CFPUD to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. This is not -- MR. ISAACSON: Not overnight. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is not a strong concern on my part, but when we heard from David Lawrence Center, I mean, there was a huge outcry about some of these uses. And to me it's something worth thinking about up here and talking about. But if it's of no concern or very little concern, I'm not going to fall on my sword over it. But you're willing to -- so you want to leave halfway houses in? March 7, 2024 Page 42 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we'll take that out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And you want to leave the other ones in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody object to that up here? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I mean, I -- I'll just -- I don't want to interrupt your flow, but I mean, I think -- I think it's the ying and yang. You're thinking about worst-case scenarios, which is I think what we should be doing, and they're trying to figure out how they can serve the community. I mean, just to kind of -- I could be wrong, but my guess is in the lower school, the lower levels, you're talking about Community School, Seacrest, there's a lot of private or for-profit institutions doing great work out there, and all the charter schools -- arguably some of them aren't doing a very good job -- they're still considered public schools, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: They are. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So if you're going -- if you're thinking through it this far, I did, you're thinking, okay, we might want to have a for-profit school here because it may benefit the community, but we're worried about -- and this is hopefully a thing of the past, but we're worried about abusive for-profit higher education centers that are convincing people to take out loans and all of a sudden you're hurting the community because you're putting a predator in the middle of your group. So it's almost like you guys -- I mean, maybe I'm -- I don't -- you know, I've never been to the church, but it sounds like every step of the way you guys are just thinking about what's best for the community. But what we're dealing with up here is, well, what's best for the community? Approving what you're doing has a lot to do with your motives and intent and who you are, and what if somebody else, 20 years down the road, has a very bad intent? And so we're trying to close as many doors as we can. So I do understand the ying and yang of it, but I also understand why it looks like an inconsistency. I don't think it's an inconsistency when you dig deeper. It's exactly -- and Howard's agreeing with me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. That actually is quite plausible, and I accept that. That's a good distinction. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, on this point -- I had thought about this as well, so I'm actually glad you brought it up. And, you know, it's not that this is not a desirable use, but the question is, is this desirable in this location? And it sounds to me like you would have 36 acres on which you could put a similar facility to the David Lawrence Center with the barbed wire walls and -- you know, and I guess, like -- would that be, you know, a use under this, what we're approving here? Because, you know -- because if it is, I don't think that is our intent, and I think we should make sure that's not what we would allow in 20 years, like you said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: This was under 8011. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 8011 was the psychiatric stuff. The for-profit versus not-for-profit is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure I'm not -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. We got -- March 7, 2024 Page 43 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm capped at 3600 square feet of 8011. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, not 36 acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, 3600. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Great. And, hey, that's just a question -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- of what we actually -- what's allowable, and I'm glad there's an easy answer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, me too. All right. Now I go to garden plots. And I asked staff this -- and I'm just trying to make a record here. When I see the word "plot," I think of burial, and I know that's not what you're thinking. But is there a better word that we could use to identify what we're talking about? MR. YOVANOVICH: How about community garden? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Community gardens it is. Now, do you mind telling me what a community garden is? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a garden plot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. No thank you. Thanks, but no thanks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Howard, come. MR. ISAACSON: Yeah, sure. Hi. Howard Isaacson. So the current ones that we do have on the site are typically 4 feet wide by 8 feet long, about 2 feet high. They're growing sweet potatoes and some other things being actually maintained by kids and distributed through Meals of Hope. So it's a dream to be able to feed people. The idea of a garden plot could include that the community actually literally comes and participates. We haven't worked through a full model yet, but right now we have congregational members who are growing things for the community. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But this is -- you wouldn't say this rises to a level of being a farmer's market, would you? MR. ISAACSON: No, they're not being raised to be sold. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So this is -- this is stuff to be given away. MR. ISAACSON: Under our current models, we're working with Meals of Hope, and they don't charge for any of the food that they distribute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, I've leave it up to the Planning Commission if anybody thinks that needs to be tightened. MR. ISAACSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And no one is jumping in, so so be it. I want to get to this 8299. I've got that somewhere. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's under schools. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, but my notes don't necessarily conform to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. Here we go. All right. 8299, where it says private elementary and secondary schools, and then it cites SIC Code 8299. That includes flying instruction schools, survival schools, truck driving schools, bartending schools, hypnosis schools. So I know we're not -- you don't have elementary and secondary at that level. It seems to me the cleanest thing to do is just strike 8299. March 7, 2024 Page 44 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- usually I have my SIC book with me. So I don't know, are public and private schools covered enough by 8211, 8243, and 8244? I just don't have that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think all you have to say is private elementary and secondary schools. You don't need to cite SIC codes. MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's okay with staff, I -- look, history lesson, I never liked that we include the SIC codes in the first place. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know, I know, and it's an anomaly that probably needs to be dispensed with. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But do you have any -- does staff have any objection to deleting 8299? Because I read them all, and that's the only one I had a problem with. MR. BOSI: Staff has no objection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's okay with the applicant, 8299 is out? I mean, you know what these 99 things are, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. My concern is -- I just want to make sure what I have left with the 8211 and 8243, 8244 allows what was intended, which is a private or public school not to exceed 450 students. I don't know, and I don't have my SIC code book, and I apologize. I don't know if the reason I got to those was through 8299. I just don't know the answer. I'm perfectly fine with eliminating every one of those uses you said, about hypnotics, driving schools. We could say "limited to elementary." MR. ISAACSON: Let me talk to this real briefly. Howard Isaacson, for the record. So if I reflect back on the logic for 8299, it does include potentially acting schools, drama schools, cooking schools, vocational-type stuff that adult learners may typically wish to participate in. So we wanted to be flexible to welcoming that. We're absolutely fine eliminating some of those key items that might be objectionable that might be on here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: When you say elementary and secondary, I think of little kids, not adult learners. And I'm not sure it matters, but I just think we need to be clear what we're recommending or not recommending on. MR. ISAACSON: So my thought there, Collier County operates adult education programs in the evenings. I would, personally, nonprofessionally consider those to be public schools and hence language skills, skill building; it's kind of reiterative of vocational training. But, you know, once again, we wanted to be able to work with any not-for-profit community partner within the county who deemed that there was a need in that area and that their missions aligned with ours to be welcome and, most importantly, legally permitted to be able to provide that kind of education. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think -- I think the language that you use, elementary and secondary schools, is language of limitation. And some of these adult learner things, I don't think you're going to be able to get that through as it's written. You would disagree? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you're asking me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm actually going back to where I was, because I was trying to cross-reference the other numbers to see. Give me two seconds, please. MR. ISAACSON: So just as a point of reference, I'm looking specifically at the March 7, 2024 Page 45 of 103 Exhibit A, A3, where the 8299 is, and listed adjacent to public or private schools, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The lead-in language to 8299 is -- it's schools and educational services not elsewhere classified. Establishments primarily engaged in offering educational course and services not elsewhere qualified. Then it has a whole bunch of uses. It doesn't limit it to elementary and secondary, 8299. It goes to what exactly Howard was talking about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think he's explained why he would like to include several of the uses within 8299. I'm sure we'll be happy to give up hypnosis schools, flying instruction. I don't know that -- why would we give up dictation schools? I don't know if that qualifies for what, you know, Terri does or similar things like that. Why would we give that up? Why would we give up a music school? Why would we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not -- we're not asking that you give it up. I don't have a problem with those uses, but you're creating an ambiguity when you call it elementary and secondary schools and then throw in things that are for adults. I don't have a problem with those uses. I just want the language to be clear so that down the road people know what it was that we were -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think we should eliminate -- I think we should eliminate the uses that may give you some pause in that 8299. Or if none of them do, then let's just leave them in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Okay. So you're agreeable with removing the ones that -- the specific uses that I mentioned that were in 8299? And I was not unhappy with any of the other uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can have them, but I just think you're creating an ambiguity. MR. YOVANOVICH: One more time. What were they; flying schools, hypnosis schools? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hang on one sec. Survival schools, flying instructions, truck driving, bartending, hypnosis. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we could probably give up bartending, but do you want to give up truck driving? Truck driving's like -- it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it involves trucks. MR. ISAACSON: And trucks are not appropriate -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. ISAACSON: -- on the site. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. We'll take it out. I'm just asking -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm lit up, if I could just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: This is -- you know, you guys can have a flight school that doesn't have planes. You guys can have a trucking -- the number of adults who don't have the skills they need to do their job is driven in great part by they owe things -- and I'm just giving you an example -- $75 to a junior college or what we used to call a junior college or where they can get the class is 20 miles away. And I do not want to create something that 20 years down the road somebody can take advantage of. March 7, 2024 Page 46 of 103 But I don't want -- they're trying to help the community in reeducating through six-week courses -- flight school's a great example. Trucking school's a great example. And with simulations, you don't need the trucks. And I assume if they start parking a truck or plane there, they're going to be in code violation. So, you know -- and if you want to get rid of, what was it, hypnotism, I mean, some people will think, why not -- that can be educational. I mean, why are -- I don't want to get rid -- I don't want to hamstring you folks more than we need to to protect the community, because I think you guys are trying to help the community. So don't -- in my opinion, and with all due respect to our chairman, don't let him push you where you think -- I mean, there's going to be people that need -- trucking's huge. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I said -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Flight school, there's a whole generation of pilots retiring. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm just referring to what they -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I know, but I think he's trying to accommodate you, and I think -- I think I want to stick to the mission here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Believe me, he's not going to be pushed by me, so don't worry about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then we want to leave them all in. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Leave them all in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got a suggestion. Because I agree with Commissioner Vernon. Can we say 8299, hyphen, classroom only? And then I don't care about the other uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to -- I'm just trying to think about if any of these things might spill into the parking lot because it's just normal. I don't know. So classroom only? MR. ISAACSON: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Classroom only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 8299, hyphen, classroom only. Okay. Does that work for you, Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. All right. And believe it or not, that's all -- oh, no, I've got one more. Just -- again, it's not a make-or-break thing, but I think a record needs to be made on this. You are asking for more traffic, more -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- peak p.m. trips. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the Planning Commission needs to acknowledge its understanding that they're going from 600 and something to 700 and something peak p.m.’s -- peak a.m.’s MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in there. I got it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And apparently -- I'm going to call on Ms. Lockhart. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. LOCKHART: I just had a clarification on classroom only. If you had a private or public school there that might have outdoor activities, I don't know if that's March 7, 2024 Page 47 of 103 pertaining also to the primary and secondary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- MR. BOSI: Chair? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. BOSI: I'll point out that a classroom only is only allocated to SIC Code 8299, and that's the ones with the uses with the trucking and the flying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. BOSI: The elementary and public schools fall under a different SIC code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is the intent, and I think that's the way we're crafting it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And I can't help myself -- one of the uses is an art school. Does that literally mean the student can't go out and paint the -- and draw a drawing of the church as part of one of the school projects? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I -- look -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- you can come up with all kinds of examples, but you should have done this before we got in the public hearing, because now we're having to fool around with it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I personally didn't have an issue with any of these things. I'm trying to help you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I don't need help, because I'll vote the way I want to vote, and then I'm done with it. Well, it's just -- it seems to me the more scrutiny -- and I'll compliment Mr. Mulhere, because I've noticed in recent applications that he is paying more attention to SIC codes and eliminating things that we don't have to fight over. But the reason we're talking about this is not because I'm being a nitpicker; it's because you didn't remove things you don't need or things that you don't need and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I'm not going to let that one pass. He told you he -- the whole intention of this is to provide educational opportunities who need educational opportunities. To say we didn't take things out we don't need, I don't agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, take out -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, we don't need to go back and forth, but that was not an appropriate comment. He gave you very good reasons for why all of these things are in here. You have every right to go down -- to come up with, well, this could mean this. You have every right, but you cannot say to us that we didn't do our job and didn't take things out we don't need. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm going to say that, but I used the wrong word. I shouldn't have just said "not needed." I should have said "things that are potentially undesirable and not needed." That's what I meant to say. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fair, but, you know, not everybody -- I do my best to catch everything that's undesirable. I do miss things, just like I'm sure you miss things as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course I do. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why we have this comment, this back and forth. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So what are we going to -- what are we going to do to get over this? Because I think we're all kind of tired of it. Can we say classroom only, or is March 7, 2024 Page 48 of 103 there some other language you'd prefer to use to cover the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not going to die on this sword. Whatever you-all decide's in your best -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I would say not limit it to classroom only. Leave it as-it. Leave it in. If you bring a truck in there, plane in there, it's going to be a code violation. You can't do that. MR. ISAACSON: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If you've got somebody -- 10 people who want to sit outside and paint because they want them outdoors, I think that's probably good for their mental health and good for the community, and I don't think they should be limited to sitting in class, although I think 99 percent of the time they will be sitting in class because it's probably going to involve simulators. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I would agree. If you're teaching truck driving, 18-wheeler, and they've got to go out and do a safety check, something like that, during the training, if there's a truck out in the parking lot, I don't want that to be a code violation. It's not going to be that they're driving trucks in and out and around the parking lot, but there may be something where they have to have a hands-on type of training or evaluation. So I don't want to -- I don't want to close the door on that type of activity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I'm -- as I say, I'm not going to base my vote on whether we leave 8299 in or not. We've had a conversation. I get the sense that it's the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave it in, and so I yield. And not only that, but I believe I'm finished with my comments. Anybody else have anything before we go to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything from the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm guessing no. Okay. Thank you. Staff report, please. MR. SABO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager. I'll make this quick. Our staff report was based on information we had in the beginning of February. And with due respect to discussions held this morning about policy, our recommendation is to remove the food truck use and the medical office use from the GMPA language. And I'll just leave it at that, respecting that the discussion happened with the commissioners this morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. James, thanks for making that brief, but I think they've agreed to remove it, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And those -- got it. Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To clarify -- yeah, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: We left medical in. We took food trucks out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We left medical in the GMP amendment. MR. YOVANOVICH: The GMP. March 7, 2024 Page 49 of 103 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're only moving food services from the GMP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm okay with that, because I think it's -- the need is self-proving. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the medical was identified clearly as not-for-profit. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But the staff's -- just so I understand, the staff does stand by their objection on the medical? MR. SABO: Correct. MR. BOSI: Correct. We appreciate the nonprofit side of it. We still have the concerns about the medical, the stand-alone, that use, but we recognize the discussion the Planning Commission had. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are there any tweaks we can make to address your concerns or the staff's concerns? MR. BOSI: No. Staff is comfortable with the position that we've arrived upon. We still think it has a -- because it's not affiliated with the church, we do have some concerns, because if you look at the permitted uses within the community facility zoning district, medical office is not one that's listed. So we do -- we still have some concerns, but recognizing that the Planning Commission feels that there's justification -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I know what the Planning -- I can tell what the Planning Commission, I think, feels. I'm just asking you, what is -- you stand by your concern even after everything you've heard? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else have questions or comments for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Mr. Sabo. MR. SABO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And at this time we will go to registered speakers, if any. Ms. Padron, what do we have? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do we have anything from the staff on the PUD, or has James covered both? MR. BOSI: James -- James' comments really were covering both. The modifications were both related to the GMP and the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker, Rae Ann Burton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Burton. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't think she heard us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Burton. Here she comes. MS. BURTON: I'm here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we see you. You have the floor. MS. BURTON: Up at 6 o'clock again this morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just say your name for the record, even though we all know you. MS. BURTON: Pardon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Say your name once for the record. March 7, 2024 Page 50 of 103 MS. BURTON: Oh, my name is Rae Ann Burton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. BURTON: I live off of 31st Street Avenue [sic], right back at the church. My question is, is services proposed other than church activities? It makes it sound more like a commercial center. These added services will create a nontax revenue for the church. Taxes are already lost on the current acres, which leaves the taxpayers/residents to pick up. I know the church in Naples charges, for one-and-a-half- hour use of meeting space once a month, the cost of $500. And they tried to raise it on us. Question on extensive search of needs. When was this done? Where are the documents? And who was asked? Two NIMs on September 30th, 2014 [sic], August 14, 2013 [sic], were at 5:30. They were over within 30 minutes or so. Not even enough time for people to get off work. Like I said, I spent over an hour getting here this morning, which usually takes me 40. The people that were there at the meetings were either retired, had the day off -- that's why there were so many there. I live in back of this project, so I'm asking -- and I don't recall anybody sending me a survey or calling me about what services are needed in the area. A fitness is offered at Max Hasse; drugstores offer medical supplies, also vaccines; basic postal services are also in the drugstores. Childcare, schools, livestock, crops, how do they benefit our area? Questions on nonprofit versus profit. In the documents, first these things are listed as nonprofit. Must be. Later they say that they're eliminated as nonprofits, and then it goes back to profit. So who pays the taxes on this revenue from these services? Church is nonprofit; pays no taxes. But what about collecting revenue from services? Are they still planning on students' resident units being built if there's a college? There's also a concern by a resident that lives right back of the church. There's a water treatment proposed right at the end of her backyard. She's concerned about that. When the first church started, they built the lake. It flooded her whole backyard. She's also had her fence torn down because they read the property lines wrong and were, I think she said, like, three feet into her land. That was also settled. So is this a church or a commercial center with a church? It sounds like a commercial service center, which will impact traffic on Oil Well. Who really benefits from this residence, the church and rental revenues, or the people that live there? Please look seriously about that. We are already congested with traffic. We moved out there to get away from traffic. To go to a doctor, travel 20 miles away is nothing. That's the reason we moved out there, because once we're out there, we don't have the traffic noise, and we don't have the citizen noise -- city noise. So thank you for your time. Really consider us. We live there. These developers don't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Any other registered speakers? MS. PADRON: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No more registered speakers. All right. Anybody in the room who has not registered but wishes to be heard in March 7, 2024 Page 51 of 103 this matter, please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will close the public-comment portion of this hearing and call on Mr. Yovanovich for any rebuttal he wishes to give. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we've kind of beaten it up pretty good. I think that it's the people who receive the services that we're trying to provide benefit. This is not a moneymaker for the church. And with that, it's a great project. It's a great outreach. And we request that you -- that you recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of both petitions with the modifications that we've agreed to today and leave the medical in both the GMP and the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Quick question. At some point this morning, Commissioner Klucik was talking about the hours and the number of trucks, we were into that, and I believe you made a -- again, no pun intended -- a concession. I don't even remember what that was. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it was -- I think we were answering his question. It's already capped at four at any time, and the hours are 7 to 8 Sunday through Thursday and 7 to 9. I think I was just clarifying that 7 to 9. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Commissioner Vernon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I think what we agreed to is that they have to leave. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (Unintelligible) they can't be present. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. Okay. We clarified that, because they were leaving anyway. But, I agree, it needs to be expressly stated. With that, that's it. That's all we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Here we are at the time of deliberation and decision. So I would -- I would like to hear from the Planning Commission and then when it comes time for a motion, I'm going to try to summarize what the additional conditions or changes were. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I did have -- I did have a question based on the public comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I don't think it's, you know, the intent, because I think the acreage is limited, but it did -- you know, I did kind of scratch my head when she talked about student housing. And I can understand the idea of this not being -- you know, not having any kind of housing. And I don't know if the petitioner, you know, like, has a feeling one way or the other, but if we could eliminate any type of housing, including student housing. You know, maybe a parsonage, you know, for the pastor or whatever, I March 7, 2024 Page 52 of 103 think could be reasonable, but beyond that, to make it so there was no residential facilities, even temporary, if that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Applicant, is that okay with you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on a second. I think we have a limitation. I'm just trying to find it. Help me, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I'm looking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While they're looking, Commissioner Klucik, you had caught a typo, I guess, and I want to be sure that I make note of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Here it is. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That was on Page 3 in the beginning. It talks about nonprofit and the specific changes to the use included. I don't know where that language follows through to the actual proposal. But in that summary, it certainly says that they are eliminating non-profit. Obviously, we've talked about that, you know, all day long. So I know somehow we need to modify the language to make sure that it is nonprofit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, do you know where that was? You-all were agreeing to his requested change having to do with nonprofit. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, it was -- in the GMP, we need to put back the words "not-for-profit" by medical. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And medical. MR. YOVANOVICH: Medical uses, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what it was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. And you wanted to say something else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. There is a maximum of 20 dormitory -- or 20 rooms associated with any school. That's already in the document. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I mean, that's -- so I don't know as any of us were thinking along those lines, so I don't want to say I feel strongly one way or the other. I have a concern that -- you know, that it doesn't become a residential area. You know, it takes on a different character. MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. And it's not going to be a residential capacity for any of the schools. It's only 20 -- 20 rooms, 20 dormitory rooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other member of the Planning Commission have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like not. All right. Vice Chairman, did you have something further to say? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Any further rebuttal, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any comments, questions, or motion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'll make a couple of comments. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do just want to -- I do want a clarification on that March 7, 2024 Page 53 of 103 last point about the housing. So it's 20 rooms. The only residential or housing is the 20 rooms associated with a school? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we decide -- if we build this -- if we don't go forward with the community facilities portion of the PUD, we can have 16 single-family units. If we go forward with the community facility form of the PUD, we could only have -- a maximum number of lodging house/dormitory rooms is 20. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's in there already? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already in there. It's on Page 8 of 15 of the PUD document. Commissioner Klucik, does that work for you? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So 20 rooms, is there -- do you know what I'm saying? Like, what does that mean? You know, because that could be a huge facility with 20 bedrooms, or it could be a -- you know, relatively small and humble facility with 20 bedrooms. Do we have a square footage cap, or should we? Like I said, this is just -- I'm just thinking about this is on the fly because of -- you know Ms. Rae Ann, talked about it, and it -- you know, it makes sense to make sure that we are thoughtful about it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, again, we have our cap of 30 feet in height, which is standard height for Estates zoning district. So I think -- and our setbacks from the road and all that are consistent with Estate setbacks, if not more. I don't see it as a big issue. I don't think we're going to be building big elaborate housing for the students that are going to -- if we build any housing at all for students that are going to come to any of these schools, I think 20 is not a very big number and can't result in a very big facility is what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, how do you want to handle this, if at all? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could we -- could you propose a cap to the maximum size of any dormitory or residential facility? CHAIRMAN FRYER: In terms of square feet? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Square footage, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wouldn't it be limited -- wouldn't it be limited by floor area ratio? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It would be built by -- it would be limited by the setbacks. We don't have -- we don't have a minimum or a maximum size room for our people, and I don't even want to guess. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- it's -- and, you know, to me -- and this is my opinion -- it's such a small inconsequential number. We're not going to build -- plus it's part of -- I guess it's part of my 90,000 square feet anyway, so I'm not going to have a big, elaborate 20-room dormitory for students that are coming to school there or for their professors, even. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But is it even limited to affiliation with the school? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I thought it was. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You made it sound like it was more broad and it could serve any, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're checking to see if it's limited to affiliation with the school. March 7, 2024 Page 54 of 103 Planning Commission, be thinking about how you want to spend the rest of your day here in terms of breaking for lunch and the like, which we take up as soon as we complete this hearing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- you know what -- and thank you, Commissioner Klucik. If you go back to Page 4 of 15, the permitted use itself is lodging house/dormitory associated with church or retreats or church training programs, up to 20 rooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that satisfy your concerns, Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just want to make a couple of general comments. I'm going to vote in favor of this. And most of the comments I was going to make kind of got worked through, so the last thing I want to do is bring up something we've resolved. And I think this goes into that old heading of, you know, you don't want to see the sausage being made. It's because it's not pretty. And I think that I want to talk to the people -- to the applicant and the people in the audience and the three or four people watching this or might read the transcript and say that, you know, I think -- I think as frustrating as we collectively might be at times for people trying to do -- what I believe is trying to do the right thing, it's our job. And I think what's being presented now as a result of us being picky or whatever you want to call it, there's a better product coming out of this. It's better for the community. As much as I said before, you know, I listen hard to the community when they come out. There's special interest groups, there's advocates, there's experts, blah, blah, blah. We're a piece of that puzzle, and our piece is gatekeeper. And as a gatekeeper, we want to keep bad products out, and we want to think about 10 years down the road, 20 years down the road. That's in fairness to our generation. So I know I exhibited some frustration today because, you know, I've got stuff to do back at the office. I want to get this thing done. But, you know, as I look back on it, I really appreciate everybody up here and everybody in this room for helping us get to a better product. And I -- I'm glad we did what we did, as tedious as it was sometimes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before we entertain a motion, I want to see if I can identify what the changes or conditions were, and we can all agree to that so they could be part of the motion. But before doing so, we had a -- we had a conversation up here, or questions were asked about hours of operation. And at one point it was talked about when -- to be when there are activities ongoing. Did we reach a consensus on what we want to recommend? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I have a thought on it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I asked that specifically of Mr. Yovanovich, and it was 7 o'clock to -- 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. during hours of ongoing activities, and we never -- it was never locked in that it would be 7 to 9 every day 24/7/365 type of operation. But it was 7 to 9, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., and with the understanding that it would be up to four food trucks, and that would be based on a -- what I would have to say is a demand. If there's no demand, the trucks are not going to be there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What we said, though, was the trucks would only be March 7, 2024 Page 55 of 103 present when there are ongoing activities. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, but we never defined the ongoing activities. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, that's limited with the other -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's limited by the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's already stated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's already stated. So I would say that's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Applicant? COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's got that "what just happened" -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, you've got church, you've got worship services, you have some inherent -- we've discussed educational, you've got sports. Anytime any of those activities are ongoing, it may create a demand for the food service trucks. But the trucks are only going to be there if there's business to be had. MR. YOVANOVICH: The hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 8 p.m. or 9 p.m? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sunday through Thursday, and 7 to 9 Friday and Saturday. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And they're not there overnight -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- food truck where we have big wheels and it's sitting there and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They've got to come and they've got to go that day. What we said is since the ball fields are -- those are the hours that coincide with the ball field. We were going to let the market, if you will -- I hate using that word -- dictate when the food trucks were going to come because -- are they going to come if there's only one person playing on the ball field? Probably not. They're going to make the decision when they want to be there because their constituency is the church activities. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just want to be sure that when we talk about that market, that it's limited to this project rather than people driving by on Oil Well. So I -- the way the Vice Chairman expressed it was that it would be during the specified hours -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- which I think is 7 to 9 Saturday and Sunday and 7 -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Seven to 8 or 7 to 9? MR. YOVANOVICH: Seven to 8, Sunday through Thursday. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Seven to 9, Friday and Saturday. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Friday and Saturday, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't think that gives you what you want. I think you've got to -- because the fields could be sitting idle four days a week and the food trucks could be there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the next thing I was going to say. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I would -- that's why I like what you guys said before, which was they're only present when there are activities that are ongoing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I was going to say. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. You said that before. I wrote it down. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well -- and I was going to say it again, that it's March 7, 2024 Page 56 of 103 those hours, the 7 to 8, 7 to 9, depending upon which day it is, plus during ongoing activities on the site. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not plus. Only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's both conditions have to be met. Both the hours have to be appropriate and you have to have activities going on. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are you okay with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't know how to define the activity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You already do in the uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. But if there are kids out there on the field playing, are you telling me I have to have an organized league on the field to qualify as that's when I have a food truck? It's going to be a code enforcement nightmare if you now say me taking my kids to go play on the field doesn't count; the food truck guy can't show up. Are you -- I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about -- can it only be during, you know, a -- I'm worried about the code enforcement part of this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The phrase is "ongoing activities," not necessarily ongoing sanctioned or official or permitted. Any ongoing activities. Kids show up, fine. Is that okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, now I'm doing what you do sometimes, which is -- sometimes I appreciate it, sometimes I don't. But, likewise you don't appreciate -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're good, Rich. This is good. MR. YOVANOVICH: It isn't, because -- if the field happens -- if I leave with my family, has the food truck guy got to leave? That's my question. That's where I'm worried about, is it a code violation? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's look at it from a practicality standpoint. If you're out there playing catch with one of the kids, or I don't know, someday your grandkids, how's that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Long, long time from now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The food truck's not going to stay there to service one or two individuals. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I say let's leave it alone and let the practical aspect deal with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm looking at the practical aspect of it. They're going to leave if there's no business. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Don't legislate me into a position where I may somehow be into a code violation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But -- so I would leave the language -- I think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ongoing activities. Informal -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Informal or formal, otherwise. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As you know, what I'm trying to prevent is a marketing effort to the Oil Well Road drive-bys. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you can do that if you've got activities going on. But if there are utterly no activities, then they've got to leave. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, that's -- March 7, 2024 Page 57 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I mean, unless you're trying to market to Oil Well. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm suggesting is, Commissioner, is the field happens to be vacant at that time, do the four trucks have to leave or can they wait because, historically, people come back and use the fields? That's what I'm asking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's a legitimate point. That's a legitimate question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's what I'm asking. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If there's planned activities for that day and they show up at 7 o'clock and there's nothing till 9, that is not a concern of mine. If they show up at 7, and you're going to have religious services or whatever at noon, I mean, they're going to show up and set up. I don't -- I'm not going to be that restrictive. So I don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like to just leave it the hours of operation that we have and let the practical aspect of it, as you suggested, deal with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm personally not comfortable with that, because I want to do everything I can to prevent this from being a marketing opportunity to pass-by traffic. And if you want to add ongoing activities or planned activities where there's something scheduled and absolutely no one is there, but they're coming back, food trucks can stay there. That's okay, because there's something planned. But for them to -- for them to stay there on the come that some people may show up and play a game of catch, they're going to end up inevitably marketing to the pass-by traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I thought -- I'm sorry. I thought we addressed that concern by pushing the trucks further back away from the road so it's not -- and no advertising related to this becoming a food operation versus an accessory use to the facilities. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But as Commissioner Klucik pointed out -- I think it was he -- you've got social media promoting this thing, and it's going to -- if they can count on those food trucks being there from 7 to 8 or 7 to 9, depending upon the day of the week, irrespective of whether there are any activities planned or ongoing, I think they're going to end up marketing to people off the premises, and then I think it's not an accessory use; I think it's a commercial activity. And so I really do have a problem with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have suggested language, because I can't -- I don't know how to advise my client with what "planned activity" means, "people being on the fields using the fields" means. It just becomes -- you know, it just becomes something that -- I would hate to be Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're not. Okay. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I understand the back and forth. I understand the risk of doing it the Chairman's way, and I think Commissioner Schmitt sort of has my view, the capitalist's view that -- You know, what I don't want to see -- I understand the Chairman's concern. And maybe I've got a solution; otherwise, I'm going to vote the way that Rich wants rather than go with the Chairman's point of view, although I do have a solution. But here's the problem I see with it, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect. If church is on Sunday morning and they set up, they run for three hours, and then there's 20 baseball games -- or I don't know how big the fields are. There's ballgames at 4 o'clock in the March 7, 2024 Page 58 of 103 afternoon, I don't want them to pick up and leave. Let me finish my thought. So I think that maybe -- only if it's okay with you, because I'm going to vote your way on this anyway. But you could say on a day -- there has to be some type of activity, not necessarily sanctioned or approved activity, some type of activity on that day for them to be there. Like, if there is a day -- you know, one day there's no sports going on, and it's not a church day, and there's nothing going on there, then I don't -- what I think the Chairman's saying is on, you know, Friday, he doesn't want everybody on social media and there's 400 people showing up for the best tacos in Collier County, and there's nothing going on, but everybody knows they're there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know whether the day -- doing the day addresses your concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm afraid to do that because -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for instance, there's pickup games that happen. Soccer is a big sport. People decide to just -- there's a vacant field. Let's go -- it's not an organized -- it's not an organized event. Things like that happen. I don't -- I don't want to have to have -- do I have to now keep a calendar that says these are the days that are scheduled? I don't want to get into that level of detail. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think it's just you got to pick your side. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I'm going to -- just so everybody knows, I'm going to vote that we don't restrict it any further, although I do understand the Chairman's concern. It's been consistent. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree. I understand. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I don't know that there's anything you can propose -- you can propose, maybe, that would help ameliorate the Chairman's concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I hoped -- I'd hoped the fact that we weren't going to have signs on the road and that it was going to be pushed back to where he suggested from the road, that it wasn't going to be -- I can't control social media. I really can't, I mean -- but, you know, I can't -- I cannot address every potential issue out there. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I mean, that was sort of the concern that I was expressing earlier. What we're proposing as a practical matter right now, based on that, you know, dialogue that we just had, what we're proposing is, pretty much regardless, as long as there's, you know, one or two human beings around from 7 to 9 or 7 to, you know, 8 and then 7 to 9 on Friday and Saturday, they can have food trucks there, which they have to leave at night, but other than that it's a food truck park. And, I mean, it's hard to argue that isn't just a food truck -- food park truck [sic] where they have to leave, and that's the concern is can't we limit this to a maximum of, you know, food truck time. You know, you can only do, you know, five hours a day, you know, so a total of 35 hours a week on-site food trucks. Or -- you know, or some number. I mean, obviously, I just threw that out. But some number so that we don't have, yeah, there's always food trucks there because it's good business. Yeah, that food truck is good March 7, 2024 Page 59 of 103 to us. They always come when we want them. Well, why don't we just let them come even though there's nothing going on today? Everyone loves it. There's always, you know, people in line at lunchtime. It's really busy. You know, I mean, all of those things are great things except when we're expressly trying to not have a food truck park here or else maybe we -- you know, maybe we do think it's a good idea to have a food truck park here. But I don't feel comfortable with the idea of just every day they could have four food trucks there from 7 to 9 which is what I think, as a practical matter, we would be approving right now if we were to go forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- and I agree with that. To my way of thinking, if they are there -- if they are there inexorably from 7 to 9 or 7 to 8, depending upon the day, people from the community will at least know that there is this commercial activity there because it's no longer accessory to anything. You don't -- and, again, getting back to Mr. Bosi's analogy of a concession stand at a sporting event, that concession stand at the sporting event is clearly accessory because they shut down when there's no sporting event. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I'd welcome any thought from the staff or, again, the applicant that can get us over this little last bump. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I will agree with the Chair. This is an accessory use. If there is no activity going on at any of these facilities that are permitted uses within this facility, this accessory use cannot go. That's not how -- accessory uses do not lead your primary uses. They are supplemental to your primary uses. And with the acquiescence that they have accepted this as an accessory use, they have to accept that there has to be some activity at some point in the day for those food trucks to be at the location. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I would add to that, if I may, that if it -- if you don't limit it that way, then there needs to be a commercial needs analysis, which there hasn't been. And, frankly, as it was pointed out in the staff report, there are 4 million commercially zoned square feet in the area, so I don't see how you would be able to prove a need. But I agree completely with Mr. Bosi that it becomes accessory to nothing when it's freestanding. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Like a dog with a bone, I'm just looking for a solution. I think I fully understand the problem. I understand both sides' arguments, and both sides' arguments are legitimate, and I'm inclined to just go with the applicant just because I love the project, but I would love to see it -- I'd love to see us address the Chairman's concern, if we can, by somebody in this room. MR. BOSI: And I think you identified it. There has to be some activity. At least one activity on the facility from a principal use has to be present for the food trucks to be present for the entire day. It doesn't mean -- I mean, that activity could only last for two days -- or for two hours, but at least it qualifies that the accessory use has a primary use that is providing that accessory supplemental activity to. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So that was my proposal, but the Chairman -- I mean, not the Chairman, the applicant didn't like that, that -- I understand. Too bad, so sad. I understand that. But I'm just saying -- MR. BOSI: But we could talk about this forever. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It kind of sounds like the applicant's got -- you've March 7, 2024 Page 60 of 103 given your best proposal, which is the same as my proposal, to address the Chairman's concern, and the applicant's unwilling to do that. So maybe you want to come back and re-think what you said. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just am concerned based on what Mr. Bosi said, the way he phrased it. So if you had church services, you know, at 9 a.m., then you can have the food truck there, you know, till 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., and I don't -- that doesn't make any sense to me. That is, then, converting this into anything other than accessory use. That's why I'm looking at hour -- you know, a cap on the hours, because then you at least have -- you know, there's a cap on the hours when someone does -- right now if someone wants to have a food truck and, you know, it's in an area where you can't and you have to get a permit, you know, there's a limit on how many hours you can do it, and I think something similar makes sense here. Obviously, I've made my point several times. I don't want to keep -- you know, keep driving down on something that no one else agrees with, but I think that's a practical way to address the concern that it just becomes nonstop round-the-clock food trucks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I call on the other commissioners -- and I've got three who want to be heard -- let me -- and this is -- if Mr. Bosi can't buy into this, then I'm going to withdraw it. But if staff is comfortable with this, I would say that if there is an activity going on, and that can be limited to two people playing catch, some activity going on, then the market will run its course and they'll leave. Then we can trust the market. But if there's an activity going on then and they're there and then there's a plan for an evening activity, they can stay all day. They don't have to get up and move and then come back. That would be unreasonable. But if -- but if there's no activity and no plan for any activity, then the only possible reason they would want to stay is to market to people driving by on Oil Well, which I think is not right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I just want to speak before the applicant speaks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want you to know, being fully transparent, that now not only the Chairman, but I've got Commissioner Klucik, and I've got Mr. Bosi all on the same page, and I'm now kind of leaning towards their point of view. Because I told you previously I'm going to vote for it anyway, but they're convincing me. So I just wanted you -- to get that out there before you spoke, if you're counting votes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm not a legal savant like my friends up here on the diocese [sic], but if I'm hearing Mr. Bosi correctly, the burden of proof is really on the applicant in the way they operate this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Always. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So if they have events planned, they've got the food trucks out there from 7 to 8, they're not in violation because it's an accessory use. But if they've got nothing going on that day and they've got food trucks out there, then they are in violation of the use. March 7, 2024 Page 61 of 103 So I feel that with that burden being on them, I don't think it's something that they're trying to get something in -- to get something by us and build a food park out there on Oil Well. I don't think that -- I don't think the market would dictate that just judging by what's next to it. So what I feel is that if they have events planned, great, food trucks are there. If there is no events planned, then they're the ones in violation, and they have to deal with it through code enforcement. Am I getting that right, Mr. Bosi? That's how it's set right now? MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got a couple ahead of you, Commissioner Klucik, but we'll get to you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just wanted to address that specific point of Commissioner Schumacher. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, well. Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that is that I think you've -- you know, I'm not sure, but I don't think the burden of proof -- I think if the county wanted to come in and say there's a code violation, we can't just say, hey, you've got a food truck here, code violation, you have to prove that you have legitimate reason to have it. I think we have to know that there's no -- the county has to say, hey, there's no activity planned, you have a food truck here, and the county has to know that there's no activity planned, and the county has to have the proof that there's no activity planned that day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we were talking about the competent substantial evidence burden of proof in this hearing, not code enforcement, because that's really, you know, not part of our scope. And unless you have something further on that, I want to call on -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that right? Is that right, Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you weren't talking about the enforcement mechanism? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, sorry. I misunderstood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. Commissioner Vernon again. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're done? All right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Other than I just want you to know I'm leaning towards these guys, because -- so this is your chance to turn that ship around. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: We all are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to have to support what Chuck said and also what staff says. We've all agreed, several hours ago, it's an accessory use. An accessory use needs a principal use. The principal use is ongoing activities. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the principal use is the field. The field is open to the March 7, 2024 Page 62 of 103 public from 7 in the morning until 8 o'clock on Monday through -- I'm sorry -- Sunday through Thursday and to the public from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Friday and Saturday. That's the principal use that is up and running and is the activity. Just because it may -- you may not have somebody playing on the field that moment doesn't mean the principal use isn't there and in effect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Argued like a good lawyer but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Then let me suggest something different, okay, to show you that this isn't somebody who's just going to park and now become a restaurant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we cap that a truck can't be there more than six hours a day, each truck? So they're not going to -- this is not going to become their permanent home. So if they think that their best opportunity, because people are going to show up and play on the fields is in the evening, or they'll have organized events, they'll pick their six-hour period. And we can track that. That's on us to track when the trucks are there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it's more restrictive than I was suggesting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's not because I can enforce what I'm suggesting. I have no clue what an activity is the way you're proposing it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to hear what Mr. Bosi has to say to that suggestion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Six hours? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that make it accessory, or does it not? MR. BOSI: It does make it -- I understand his point that the field use is always available from the time that it's open, so that's a principal use. It's just if there's no one there, it doesn't seem like it justifies having the accessory use to feed people who aren't there. But I think you get much further to addressing your concerns and staff concerns that there's a limitation in terms of how long these folks -- or these trucks can be at this location at any one point in time in between the levels of activity that are going on. Because I imagine as this develops, there's going to be church activities as -- if a church is ever developed at this location. And the other -- the community facilities, there's probably going to be a variety of activities that happen throughout the day. But in the early stages, I think you are right, that this could be utilized as a food truck park as a primary use. So I think limiting the hours to any one food truck does get it a little bit better with also the understanding that there has to be some activity on the -- on the site, you know, to justify that accessory use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that goes further than just the six hours. That's a further limitation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yeah. Again, I don't want to fight about what "activity" is. I can measure the hours that the truck is there. That's easy to monitor. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would this be all four trucks or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Each truck. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- could they tag team? MR. YOVANOVICH: Each truck could be there six hours. You may only have one show up; we may have two. One might decide that the best activity is in the morning. You know, one may say the best activity's in the evening. March 7, 2024 Page 63 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't go for that, because that means that you could have some food truck presence for 13 hours. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what, if we want to play the game, I could just have someone hang out in the field all day. I don't want to do that either. That's not our goal, okay. Our point is, don't put me in a position where I'm now going to fight about what's an activity. I think what we're proposing is a combination of certainty for you-all recognizing that the market's going to drive whether these trucks really want to be there in the first place. But don't make me justify whether there was an activity and how long ago was that activity there, and how long can the truck stay after somebody was playing on the field. That's what my fear is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think what you're now proposing, though, is at war with the official interpretation of the county, as Mr. Bosi mentioned, that it's no longer accessory if -- if there's nobody there on that site, it's accessory to nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: But he already told me he doesn't care if they were there at 2 o'clock -- at 7 in the morning and they come back at 4 in the afternoon; the truck doesn't have to leave. That's what I heard earlier in the testimony. So what I'm saying is, I'm trying to address a concern without having to fight over what the word "activity" means, because the activity, candidly, is the field, is there open and available. That permitted use is open and available from 7 in the morning till 8, or 7 in the morning till 9. Technically, that activity is running and they can't find me in violation. What I'm trying to do is meet you some part of the way by limiting it to six hours for the truck. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Speaking of time, let me just make an announcement, and then, Commissioner Klucik, I'll give you the last word here. We are at a point now where we usually have a court reporter break. Usually we combine that with lunch. We can either take a lunch break now -- it's 12 minutes after 12 -- or we can take a 10-minute break for the court reporter and everyone else, including myself, people who need a break. And I want to find out what the Planning Commission wants to do. Obviously -- obviously, we're not going to be able to put these other matters off and have a lunch at 3 in the afternoon, because I need to refuel before 3 in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we bring this one to a conclusion -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, yeah. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- before we break? CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- if it's going to be suitable to the court reporter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I've got a request here, but I was going to -- I would have to -- I'm going to go with the six-hour limitation, I would agree. I think it's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I was just going to say that I think that's a great compromise. What that does -- I agree with you. The field is open. You're inviting the public to come use the field. That's a nice activity. You know, the church wants to provide that opportunity, that venue to people in the community who need it and can -- you know, can have clubs or whatever, you know, kind of activity that isn't necessarily a programmed activity at the church. And I think by limiting it to the six March 7, 2024 Page 64 of 103 hours, what you do is you do -- you know, you create a sense that this isn't just constant food trucks. It's related to the idea that we have a planned, you know, public access to the park, and I think that makes a lot of sense. So I'm satisfied with that proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to follow up with -- based on the six hours, I would agree. In an effort to move this forward, my concern for this whole project was the issue of staff not supporting the medical facility. We pretty much accomplished that hurdle, and we all agree that the medical support is an acceptable use on that site. But to move the debate away from the food trucks, which I think is -- we pretty much beat to death here. But I think the six-hour limitation as a principal use solves a problem. I know we can debate whether it's supporting an activity. But if the field is there, I think you could justify that the food trucks could also be there six hours does protect at least from that standpoint the business from going out there. If there's no business, they're going to leave. But I would make a -- I'm going to make a recommendation of approval, but I need for the Chair to go through the several limitations that he so efficiently kept track of as we went through, because I lost track after several -- several of the changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I want to clarify, if each -- if there are four trucks on there and each one was limited individually to six hours, there could be a food truck presence for 13 hours. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. The field is there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We haven't solved the problem. We are not solving your problem. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're not solving the problem. The problem's going to solve by economics. They're not going to be there if there's no business. COMMISSIONER SHEA: They're not going to be there if there's not a planned activity. Somebody's not going to drive in and think there might be a pickup softball game on, so I'm going to go out there. But if you give them six hours a day, they can set up six hours a day. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And I'm not going to go there with hopes of attracting somebody driving from Immokalee into town and they're going to stop and get a taco. I mean, that's -- from a business perspective, I just don't see that -- if it's one or two, it's going to happen. But, otherwise, they're not going to sit there. It's just not economically feasible for that truck to sit there if there's no business. So I would let -- I'm willing to just let the market deal with that. The six-hour limitation, as proposed, I think, is measurable. The field is there, which is the principal use. And I think that solves the problem. I have to concur, it could be problematic, but I think we're putting way too much into trying to solve what I count -- think is not a big problem. Again, my problem was with the medical support, and I believe that that -- the medical was certainly something that's desirable out there and is a great assistance to the community. So I think we just -- we can move forward with that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And when he makes the motion, Commissioner Schmitt makes the motion, I'll second that, and I'll say, you know, we're kind of talking March 7, 2024 Page 65 of 103 about a food truck park, and although somebody could be there all the time 13 hours a day, it starts to look a lot less like a park, a food truck park, and you've got less likelihood somebody on Oil Well Road would say, "Hey, let's go to the food park. Somebody will be there." I mean, if it's one truck at a time, that's not a food truck park, even if that happens. So I'm -- I will second the motion once he makes it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to clarify about amplified sound. The ballpark, that's all been specified in here? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Look, there's no -- there's no music. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no alcohol -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- being served. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're not dealing with the potential of abuse of the food park limitation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I need to bounce this to Mr. Bosi. So what is about to be proposed -- or I guess you've made a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I make the motion, but it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're going to wait until I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- subject to your list. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So -- but what it looks like is going to be your motion is that each individual of the four food trucks can only be there for six hours. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so there is a potential for a food truck there for all 13 hours. And my question to Mr. Bosi is, is that consistent with your understanding of an accessory use? MR. BOSI: If the field is open -- if the field is open from 7 to 8, as long as the field's open, that accessory use could be associated with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Whether people are present or not? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, you don't know when it's going to show up -- you don't know when someone's going to show up. So the field's open. The accessory use is open. If people show -- if people show up, then they could avail themselves of the field and the accessory of the food. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Now we've got two commissioners who are signaling at this point. Start with Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're done. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, inadvertent. Butt dial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's okay. Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I still -- we've gone around in circles, and we're back to the point that we can still have a full-time food park there with this. I -- they're not just going to go come out and -- you know, they're going to coordinate with the people there and find out if there's a planned activity. I like a planned activity to be March 7, 2024 Page 66 of 103 more consistent with what Mike's saying rather than at some point in time there may be an activity so we can sit there for 13 hours a day. I don't think we've solved your problem. And so I don't support the six hours. I think it's contradictory to the intent of your concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm inclined to agree. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I agree with your concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I do have a comment now. I think -- I was trying to figure out that Rich was definitely trying to explain how it's open. I would say it's almost like -- let's say I have a gym, and I keep the gym locked unless there's, you know, a game planned or somebody's, whatever. This is different in that it's open, period. There's no, well, you can only walk on the field and practice your soccer skills if there's a planned activity. And I think Mike is comfortable with that distinction: If it's open, there's the potential for an activity from the hours agreed upon and, therefore, the food trucks being there is an accessory use. And although it's not a black or white issue, I understand exactly what you're saying, Paul; it does reduce the accessory use overall. So I think the first point is technically we're on solid ground. It's an accessory use because it's open. It's not like a gym; I lock up and unlock the key [sic] when there's a game. But, secondarily, we're reducing the chances of abuse, by reducing the chances that this could be like a park, a stand-alone park that people may drive to, by limiting the six hours. So I think it doesn't change the technical point, because Mike's already agreeing with me on the technical point, or the applicant on the technical point, I think, but it also, as a practical matter, I think, reduces the chance for the abuse we're so concerned about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. We also get into an interpretation, what is a planned activity. I would suggest that a planned activity is the field is open for public play from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. That is a planned activity and, as such, it would be allowed to have the truck there. I -- we've already debated whether it was league play or nonleague play, but a planned activity is, you are not in violation, you are not trespassing if you're there at 7 a.m. and have a pickup soccer game or whatever you want to say. That's a planned activity. I don't think trying to define any more refined definition than that is -- I think it's problematic. I think the six-hour limitation, it gives staff the -- making them comfortable that it's -- they're not there full time and they're not there 13 hours a day. Yes, there could be them trading off. But, again, what Paul brought up about a planned activity -- I'm repeating, again, a planned activity is an open field. So I still -- I support -- and I stay with my recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So, Mike, maybe you can help me with this. So the field is there. I'm a food truck guy. Can 20 of them -- who decides who shows up? Jamie, you want to clarify? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we do. You can only have four. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, but they call you. They call who? March 7, 2024 Page 67 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: Us. They have to have our permission. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the -- so if there's no planned activity, other -- I guess I don't see a pickup game as a planned activity, but I guess the market would decide that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I'm worried about the other side of the coin by assuming that, that you have created an opportunity for full-time food trucks. That's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand -- I understand your concern; however -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you're coordinating the food -- they're not just showing up. MR. YOVANOVICH: They have to get permission from us. That's the only way I'm going to track. I'm going to say, hey, you can be here from 10 to 4, you know, or whatever. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you know what a planned activity is? MR. YOVANOVICH: I know when the field's open. And I don't know if -- and, Paul, people go and use these fields at all times of the day. That's the service we're providing to the community that they don't have right now. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if you -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: They have a ball field to go and enjoy themselves. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you're going to a practice game, you're not going to look for a food truck. If you have a league play, you're going to ask for a food truck. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know -- no, I don't know, I mean, you've got -- let's just say it becomes not a formal league, but it's an informal league where everybody gets together on a Sunday morning -- or Sunday afternoon after church, not related to the church, and we say we're going to have pickup soccer games. Well, that's going to be something also, you know, the food truck guy goes, you know what, we have this informal league, I can have a food truck and make a buck, so I'm going to come to that. Is it a planned activity? No. It's not a planned activity, but it's an activity that becomes custom there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Who's going to call them up and say we have a planned activity, we have a pickup game? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't know when the people are -- we're not there -- we're not there to know that the planned activity occurred. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You just said that he has to call them and tell them -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They are. No, they call him -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Everyone, I need to remind everyone -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Am I talking over you? One. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- please don't talk over one another. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. No. They have to call and ask him for permission to come. He's not calling and saying, hey, we've got a pickup game. Come serve the pickup game. They're saying, hey, I get six hours a day, can I come from 10 to 4. He's going to say come on. Now, it may turn out that only two people show up to throw a Frisbee that day. I don't know. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I give an example, Mr. Chairman? March 7, 2024 Page 68 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Here's the -- I'm buying the distinction -- repeating myself, but I'll give an example. Rich is saying, let's say me and my buddies 20 years ago, not today, are sitting around going, yeah, I used to throw a 90-mile-an-hour, you know, baseball. No, you can't do that. Okay. Well, let's go get -- let's call 20 of our buddies. It's Sunday afternoon. There's no games on. Let's go get a game together. We show up at 2 o'clock, and now we've got 20 guys who are going to be -- want to eat and drink afterwards. And they're there. They didn't tell the church. They didn't tell anybody. Now, let's say the same example except it's basketball, and I could dunk -- you know, let's say I could. It's a real hypothetical -- and I start talking trash. And my buddy said, let's go play basketball, and we go out the gym and it's locked. So that's the distinction I think the applicant's attorney is saying that they're -- that agree it's open for activity, period. It's not open for activity if you get permission of the church to unlock the gate. If it were a locked gate, then I could see it. So that's the reason I'm kind of coming down on the applicant's side now. If we put in the six hours, less chance of a park. And if -- so -- I don't know that it helps. I was just trying to throw something out drawing a distinction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we've got Mr. French and maybe Mr. Sabo who want to be heard. MR. FRENCH: I'd just speak on behalf of Mr. Sabo and myself. Mr. Bosi's already addressed the intention of this PUD. I appreciate the opportunity and, respectfully, I just want to put on the record, Jamie French, department head for Growth Management. I've not been sworn in, but I'm just going to put on the record the six hours is unenforceable. Code Enforcement will not be sitting there for six hours counting how many hours a food truck is there. That -- we are not built for that, and unless otherwise directed and budgeted by the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager's Office, we are not built for that, folks. And so I respectfully ask, before you obligate your Code Enforcement partners, understand the dynamics of their business, and that would go to the applicant; the public as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would six hours work if it were all or nothing? Four food trucks are there or they're not there as opposed to tag team? MR. FRENCH: It would be easier -- and I would defer to the County Attorney. He and I briefly discussed it. But I would tell you, it would be easier if you identified hours of operations. That is measurable. That's something I can take action on, or our Code Enforcement group can. But to say one food truck has been there for seven hours, unless we witness it, we are not going to know it, and we are not going to enforce it. We could -- there's not substantial competent evidence for us to be able to prosecute a case like that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Where I am on this, then, is I'm going to -- either by way of a motion to amend or a main motion, depending upon how things fall in, that the six-hour limitation March 7, 2024 Page 69 of 103 applies to all or nothing; that we can't have tag team food trucks. For reasons of enforcement and also as a practical matter, I think that that would lead to a commercial presence there for 13 hours a day, that the word would get out that your taco place might not be there, but you can still go get a seafood sandwich or something from the other food truck, and the presence of a food truck that long is not supported by any commercial needs analysis, and so I cannot support that. And I will make my position known either as a motion to amend or as an agreement with the main motion. So we'll just see how it goes. Anybody else want -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think six hours, then, would be too restrictive, that -- if the park is open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, was it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Friday and Saturday. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Friday and Saturday. I think, then, if you have somebody playing in the morning, they're not there. And I think that's too restrictive. So if it's -- if -- understanding what Jamie said, instead of 13 hours, we can go 10 hours or 12 -- 8 hours or 10 hours a day, somewhere that would more reasonable that could be measured, not the 13 hours. We can say from 9 a.m. -- 9 a.m. to 8 a.m. [sic] and change those times. If people have league in the morning, I don't think, you know, that the food trucks are going to show up. But it would be certainly more, from a standpoint of an accessory use, available to the patrons who use the facilities. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I understand what you're saying correctly, then -- and you're perfectly entitled to do this -- but you are not in support of Mr. Bosi's point of view? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's his -- go back -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: He was satisfied with the six hours, but then when this enforcement question came up, it becomes impractical. I don't think he is in favor of letting them be there if there's nothing going on for 13 hours. MR. BOSI: Let me characterize, because that's not what I'm saying. Looking at their permitted uses in the PUD, the athletic field's one of the permitted uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. BOSI: And if those hours are 7 to 9 or 7 to 8, and if we deem and we're saying the food trucks are an accessory use, whenever that park -- when that principal use is open, that accessory use could be available. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I agree with that. MR. BOSI: What you are uncomfortable with is that, because you feel like that creates a food truck park, and that's what the -- that's where we're at. We're at a debate. And I think we're not going to get a comfort level from you because I don't think we can put the restrictions on that you're looking for. But the way that a primary and accessory use would work -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR. BOSI: -- if that primary use is open for the public from the time that they've stated, that accessory use can be available by nature of how accessory uses work in relationship to the primary use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you're back to the -- your staff is agreeable that the allowed use now would be 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. to support the principal use; that the accessory use is allowable during that time period? March 7, 2024 Page 70 of 103 MR. BOSI: Staff's position is if a principal use within the PUD is in operation and is open, the accessory uses would be available. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Which is what I'm saying. I'm giving examples of what you're saying. And the only person we haven't heard from -- because, in a way, this is an interpretation. You know, what is an activity? And the applicant now is arguing -- I think you're supporting it, Mike, and I think I'm supporting it, and I think Commissioner Schmitt's supporting it, that an activity is when it's open. When the park's open, then anybody could go on, and we can't predict when they're going to be there. But that's an activity as opposed to a locked gym that's only open when there is an activity. But I don't know -- are you comfortable with that interpretation? I am, but I want to see your -- MR. KLATZKOW: You either want food trucks there or you don't. If you want the food trucks, they're going -- they can be there anytime the park is open -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- period. So it's 7 to 9. Now, you've got the ability to limit the hours if you want. But if somebody's doing an evening soccer thing, I don't know why the trucks have to leave partway through the match. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But to put a point on it, do you -- are you comfortable with my interpretation that if the park is open for use, that is enough of an activity, because it could be used to make this -- make the four food trucks an accessory as opposed to a primary? Are you comfortable with that? MR. KLATZKOW: They are an accessory use. They're accessory to the park. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, that's -- everybody's saying the same thing, I think. MR. KLATZKOW: All I'm saying is that there will be food trucks there from 7 to 9. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But that's -- I'm just trying to get your legal interpretation knowing that you can't guarantee us, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: But you do understand, I mean, you've got a Comp Plan and a rezoning in front of you, so you can -- you can mold it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I understand. I'm just -- but you understand my question. I want to get -- I think you gave me an answer, and I think it's consistent with what Mike Bosi said, Commissioner Schmitt said, and Commissioner Vernon said, and what the applicant is saying. That's -- so I'm -- I got -- I think I got it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Question: Will there be lights? Will it be evening activities lighted? MR. YOVANOVICH: The fields are going to be open until 9 p.m. I don't know that we have plans for lights, but we could have plans for lights until 9 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday [sic], and 8 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So there could be -- yeah, Friday. Now Joe's got me all mixed up. Sunday through Thursday from 7 to 8, and from -- Friday and Saturday, 7 to 9. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the intent -- and I think we all agree on it. We just March 7, 2024 Page 71 of 103 can't find the wording -- is that the food trucks are there to service the people who are using the facilities. MR. YOVANOVICH: Who could be using the facilities, yes. There may not be someone there that minute. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So what if -- what if we -- is there a way to word it -- and I don't know how to do that -- that that's the intent is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it is. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're trying to eliminate it from serving the general public. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those hours are tied specifically to the park. COMMISSIONER SHEA: They are, but if nothing's going on, there's the protection for the community of it coming [sic] a food truck destination place is what I think you're hearing the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I hear what you're saying, but at the end of the day, if you're a business person, are you going to put your food truck there if nobody's using the fields? You're going to figure this all out. And first of all, you're going to ask our permission, and you're going to figure out that, you know what, it turns out on the evening -- on the weekdays during the evenings from maybe 4 until 8 or 4 until 9 there's people mulling around -- and maybe there's not a scheduled league, but you're going to figure out that, hey, I want to be out there because there's an opportunity to make a buck. But, you know, the other way -- Paul, I don't know what to do to -- I don't know what to do. But keep -- can I start -- can I start with something from the basic premise? When we were doing our NIM, we had food trucks as a permitted use, and there wasn't a neighborhood outcry against that happening. Now, it's -- I respect that we now need to move it to an accessory use. But are we looking for a problem, or is there really a problem? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to have to do something here. It's 12:35. We're going to take a 10-minute break, and we're going to come back and continue to work on this, and then we can talk about what our lunch plans are after we conclude it. So we're in recess until 12:45. (A brief recess was had from 12:35 p.m. to 12:45 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's proceed forward. I've had some one-off conversations with various people, and without objection and certainly if -- you know, if I'm outvoted on this, we'll do it the way the Planning Commission wants to do, but I personally cannot go without lunch. I can go late on lunch, but I need something to eat to refuel. And so what I propose we do is we finish this matter, then have a lunch, and then we come back and we lead with Livingston, and we push the two staff-initiated things to the end, and that may get us out of here -- well, who knows when it gets us out of here, but we've signed up for the whole day if needs be. So does anybody object to that? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do not object to that at all. I will tell you, I'm March 7, 2024 Page 72 of 103 going to talk to my team but -- and I hate to be the bailer on the group -- but, you know -- and I know I'm not the only one with a full-time job, but I may have to leave early. But I'm not opposed to what you just said. I just wanted to let you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And if you do, you do. We won't lose our quorum unless other people are in the same boat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In reality, the next petition is nowhere near as contentious as this one, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, now it's not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hey, hey, hey. Don't jinx me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Don't jinx you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Don't jinx me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So that's without objection, then. I've got Commissioner Vernon and Commissioner Shea lighting up. Do you -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you're ready to continue. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you both -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I'm ready to go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So -- let's see. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I want to get to a motion and a vote, and so I'm going to vote -- and I know I keep going back and forth, but I think that's appropriate -- it's not wishy-washy -- as I hear the evidence. But I'm going to -- I'm going to vote in favor of this. I think Jamie French has told us the six-hour rule's not practical. I think that I've got one, two, three, four, five people in the room, that I respect their opinion, that this activity is when it's open, and it's not locked up. And so I think we're on solid ground to vote for this. And the only other thing, you know, we're trying to prevent abuse, and I think we're doing a great job of trying to make sure we don't [sic] prevent abuse. And I'm not an expert on food truck parks, but every food truck park I've ever been to has a lot of alcohol served, and there's a lot of stuff going on, and that is not what this is going to be. And I've never been to a food truck park that has four trucks. So while, arguably, this is a food truck park, it is not -- I don't think it's an attractor. I don't think we're -- it's going to be somebody's -- it's going to be a destination to go to except guys who -- I say guys -- women, men, kids who want to play sports and would prefer to go somewhere they can get, you know, a Gatorade or get something to eat afterwards or before. So I'm going to vote for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I've gone around -- and it's almost embarrassing to see how we've gone around in circles. And I think we're trying to find some way of controlling. Well, the control is that they have to call the church to come out. The control is with the church. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You know, hey, there's nothing going on, or, hey, there is something going on. And rather than trying to legislate six hours and create a code problem, I think we're better off -- I'm willing to approve it the way it's been proposed with the -- I'm not sure quite the staff limitations -- and I have a list of four or five amendments that we've all agreed to, but I've kind of backed down figuring we're not going March 7, 2024 Page 73 of 103 to get any better control than the site ownership having to approve them coming. And I'm willing to accept that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anyone else wish to -- go ahead, Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to go back to make sure we're in proper procedures. I did have an amendment -- or I did have a recommendation for approval on the table subject to your amendments, but I have to withdraw that because I had six hours, and I need to withdraw that, and we'll have to have another motion then. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me, then, state the conditions -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- that I think seem to meet the consensus. So I've got those in a different color here. I need to look for the color green. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank goodness for you, Mr. Chairman, because I could not pull that off no matter how much time you gave me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I started keeping track, and I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The first one, as suggested by Commissioner Klucik, the nonprofit -- nonprofit language needs to be restored in the medical and, apparently, it was deleted inadvertently anyway, and I think the applicant has agreed to that, correct, everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then with respect to the food trucks, I think where the majority is is that the hours are going to be 7 to 8, except for Friday and Saturday when they're 7 to 9 and that there's going to be no six-hour limit. There will be no advertising -- formal advertising, and the positioning of the food trucks will be south of the south borderline of the sports field. So that's a condition. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did you say no six-hour limit? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No six-hour limit. I mean, that's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Anytime -- I'm on the same page. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I mean, that's what I'm hearing you all say. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not supporting that, but we can come to that in a moment. I'm just trying to forge the consensus. And then we're going to remove halfway houses from 8011, and I think -- Mr. Yovanovich, did I miss any? MR. YOVANOVICH: You did. Mr. Chairman, food trucks come out of the Growth Management Plan amendment altogether -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and they become an accessory use in the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, of course. All right. So those four conditions. Did everybody agree and understand that those are the conditions? COMMISSIONER SHEA: What did we do with 8299? We left it as-is? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. We're taking out -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just the halfway houses? CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- halfway houses, but the rest of it -- oh, no, no, 8299. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was 8299, we're taking out halfway. March 7, 2024 Page 74 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So those are the conditions, and I'd entertain a motion at this time. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon moves to approve that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And so that's a motion and a second for the Growth Management Plan amendment and the CFPUD. We're not voting on -- we don't vote on EAC. Is there any further -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Garden plots was changed to community. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. That's a fifth one. So we've got five -- thanks very much for catching that. It's community gardens. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mike, have we missed anything that you know of? MR. BOSI: Not that I recall. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So with those five conditions, it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have -- I'm going to vote against it, and I want to make a record of why. It -- I was struggling to find a way to see the food trucks as truly accessory in line with Mr. Bosi's initial analogy, which was the concessions stand at a sports event, which would close down when there are no sports events going on. But since that has been expanded, I think -- I think what we have here is we are creating a food truck park whether we're going to admit it to ourselves or not. That's what it's going to be. And it's going to be potentially running from 7 to 8, and I think with the potential for informal communication via social media and the like, the word will get out, and I think that as a result of market forces and the profit motive, you'll find the food trucks who are still there are going to somehow find their way to market to the people who are passing by on Oil Well. Now, having said that, none of that is bad in and of itself, but to me it requires a needs analysis, at least some demonstration that the community needs this. I realize that's not a GMPA, but the fact that there are 4 million commercially zoned properties -- 4 million square feet of commercially zoned properties in the nearby area tells me that this is not something that we need unless it were a truly accessory use. And I think having it open, as long as people can come play on an empty sports park, I think that we need to acknowledge to ourselves that we are opening the door for the existence of a 7 to 8 or 7 to 9 p.m. daily food -- food court park. And I'm going to ask the County Attorney if he disagrees with me. MR. KLATZKOW: Not at all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So there are my reasons for voting no. And further discussion? Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If the perception is we're authorizing a food truck park, what is the -- and I'm going to -- I guess I have to ask my colleagues, is it the number four trucks? If it were two trucks, would it be a food truck park, or would one truck be a food truck -- I'm trying to sort through as to when does it become a food truck park? At four trucks? Two trucks? One truck? MR. KLATZKOW: One truck. March 7, 2024 Page 75 of 103 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One truck? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: One truck. Small park. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we're creating a food truck park, or there's a significant potential for that. And if there's nothing going on in this church property or church or sports property, these people are going to want to get people coming off of Oil Well whenever they're there in business. And there's no six-hour limit because it can't be enforced. So that's where I am. And I think I've made my record clear that, when it appears in the staff report, my reasons for voting against this will be -- will be present and self-evident. Anything further before we take a vote? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. You know, I am going to agree with you, and I think -- I think something that would, you know, change my vote to support it would be if the church had a list, like a roster, you know, that was available so you could, you know, clearly show that these things were tied to activities, and if there were trucks that, you know, were there that were outside of those windows then, you know -- but at this point, I agree with you, there's -- it's very hard to explain to the neighbors who don't want a food truck park in Golden Gate Estates, in this area, it's very hard to explain to them how this isn't a food truck park, because you could have four trucks from morning till night every day, and there's no restriction on it. That's how I -- I think that's what we're approving, as long as they say the field is open. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Further comments before we have a vote? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'll make a couple of comments just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- because I think we're creating a record for County Commissioners to look at and make a decision. On the point of the needs analysis, technically maybe, depending on how you interpret everything, one's required. But I think that the fear that this will be a food destination is only going to happen if there's a need. If there's not a need, it's not going to happen. And if you're saying, well, I need a needs analysis because I'm concerned this is going to happen, then it's not going to happen if there's not a need. And if there is a need, then the needs would -- the needs analysis would support what they're asking for today. The other thing is, yeah, okay, one food truck's a food truck park, then, you know, no matter what -- how we tweak this, we've got a food truck park. And, again, I go back to the lack of alcohol, the lack of -- I don't think this is being driven by how much money can we make through a food park. So I don't think the -- this will be that used -- used, unless there is a need. And if there is a need, it probably ought to be there. And I think that what the concern -- I'm going practically, not technically -- but practically, I don't see it as a huge concern in terms of traffic or anything like that, because you're talking at most four trucks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm going to -- Commissioner Shea. March 7, 2024 Page 76 of 103 COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is -- I'm asking. Is there, I mean, some way we can put an intent into our agreement that it is the intent that this will be managed in a way to service activities sanctioned by the church and not be turned into a public -- publicly available service? I know that intents are -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can express our -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- are terrible words, but that's really what we're worried about. I mean -- and there's no teeth in it, but at least everybody's agreeing to what the intent is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's no reason in the world we can't put that in there and express our intent. I mean, does the moving party agree to express an intent that way or not? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As far as the intent of the accessory use? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exclusively an accessory use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we go back to what we discussed previously, there has to be some kind of event taking place. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I had taken it, it is the intent that there will only be -- they're being provided to service the people using the facilities, not to attract people from -- that aren't using the facilities into the food -- and I know we've done a lot of things in the requirements, moving signs, moving food trucks around to accomplish this, but making the statement that they agree that's the intent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to be heard, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, "intent" is a totally unenforceable term. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. It's -- I think that it's an accessory use because the activity is available. Don't forget there's going to be times when church is going on, too. It's not just the field. So, I mean, we're -- so I understand the concern, but I also agree with Mr. Vernon, if it turns out -- it turns out that there's a need for this food service to the community -- you know, we never got into the data and analysis that my client was going to provide because we just said, well, we'll just do it staff's way. So I don't think -- I mean, I know what you're worried about, but I think you can't throw the word "intent." I think -- I think we meet the law, and I -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I think arguably, not to step on what you are saying, but I think the word "accessory use" -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- is exactly the intent -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- which I think -- so Paul's -- I would just submit that the word "accessory" in and of itself -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- we're not intending this to become the central thing is, hey, let's go to the food park and, by the way, we can go to church and, by the way, we can go play ball. We're going to play ball or go to church and, by the way, there's a food truck there. That's what you're looking for. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. March 7, 2024 Page 77 of 103 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's all well and good but, again, I think we're creating a high probability of a food truck park being there open seven days a week for 13 hours, for 12 hours, whatever it is. Anybody else want to be heard on this before we have a vote? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The goodwill of the applicant, you know, which I believe they have goodwill, will go a long way to prevent, you know, what we're -- what I'm concerned about. And so I hope, you know, they will make sure that we don't have food trucks there -- four food trucks there all day. I think that the food truck vendor -- and they could limit that; it's their property. They could tell the food truck vendor, hey, you can only be here for four hours. This is the time. You know, they could make it so that it isn't a food truck park or that atmosphere. MR. ISAACSON: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I hope that's what they will do, given that, you know, these concerns are so obvious. And I think they're -- you know, the neighbors would legitimately be concerned that now you do have raw commercial activity -- you have the potential for raw commercial activity from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on, you know, Friday and Saturday. And if you're a food truck owner, you're -- you know, you're not going to -- you know, you're -- obviously, you're going to not be there unless there's clients, but why wouldn't you have your friends be promoting, you know, your food truck's presence on social media, et cetera? You know, why wouldn't you be encouraging all of your -- you know, all of your customers to come back? Hey, yeah, we're going to be here tomorrow. We'll be here, you know, at noon. We'll be here at 3, whatever. So I see that it's a huge potential for this to go wrong, but I think the goodwill of the applicant will -- can prevent that, so I hope that's what they'll do if this were to go forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we have a motion, and we have a second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, subject to five conditions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the five conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody unclear on what those five conditions are? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I think I'm going to -- I'm going to call the roll, exercise the prerogative of the Chair to call the roll and ask for your vote, yay or nay, without objection. If anybody objects -- and we'll start with Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yay is aye? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yay, I want to get to lunch. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Commissioner Klucik? March 7, 2024 Page 78 of 103 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the Chair votes nay. So it passes 4-2. And thank you all for everyone's hard work on this. And from here, we'll go to a lunch break, and we'll take a 40-minute lunch break so that we'll be back here at -- go ahead, Commissioner Vernon, did you want to -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I didn't want to interrupt you. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, we'll be back here at 1:45. Did you want to say something before we -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I apologize, but I think I'm going to head back to the office -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- and call it a day. And what I will do, because I apologize -- I kind of -- you guys got me trained. I'm out of here by 2 or 3. So I'm -- going forward I'm going to tell my team just to block out 9 to 5 so I don't have this issue come up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that. Thank you. All right. We stand in recess until 1:45. (A luncheon recess was had from 1:05 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.) (Commissioner Vernon and Amy Lockhart are absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's reconvene, ladies and gentlemen. ***And next on our agenda, again, two companions, PL20220003225, which is the Livingston Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment and its companion, PL20220002336, the Livingston Veterans Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUDZ. 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. And ex parte disclosures starting with Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only and a site visit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. In my case, matters of public record, meeting with staff, and communication with March 7, 2024 Page 79 of 103 the agent for the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich, the agent representing the applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials and public record only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We will -- when he returns, we'll ask for his disclosures as well. You may proceed, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is Livingston Veterans Commercial, LLC. Andrew Saluan is the representative of that entity. The team is myself, Chris Scott from Peninsula Engineering, Jenna Woodward, and Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant. The property we're talking about is at the southeast -- thank you -- quadrant of Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Livingston Road. It's approximately 4.6 acres. And to the east is the Allura apartment complex. To the north is Mediterra, to the northwest is Mediterra, and you've got Veterans Memorial Elementary School, and then further to the west is the new high school. What we're requesting is -- let me go back a second. Basically the north half of this property is already designated for commercial use. The south half of this property is being added to a subdistrict, and we're expanding some of the uses over the entire 4.6 acres. When the Allura apartments were coming through -- I don't know if any of you were on the Planning Commission at that time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was. MR. YOVANOVICH: You were. It was -- it was anticipated that this piece would come in and be joined into the north piece because it just makes sense at this major intersection for commercial uses to be on this piece of property. We are -- as I mentioned, there are C-1 uses on basically the north half of the property. We are keeping those C-1 uses and adding some convenience retail and service uses on the property including a gas station and car wash as well as adding the ability to have up to 100,000 square feet of indoor self-storage. Your staff asked us to limit the overall intensity of the property to 100,000 square feet, so we're fine with that limitation to 100,000 square feet. So the way this would work is we'd have up to 50,000 square feet of retail, up to 100,000 square feet of self-storage. We'd be capped at the 100,000, so there could be -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Minus the retail. So if you use all -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just about to say that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'll give a hypothetical, we could have 20,000 square feet of retail and 80,000 square feet of indoor self-storage, but we cannot exceed the 100,000 square feet, and we would keep the trip cap that's already there. So we would be traffic neutral on however we allocated that square footage. March 7, 2024 Page 80 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, if you'd let me, please, I'm going to try to say what you just said to be sure we have absolute clarity on where you are now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this is -- this is a compromise from where you were. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That it would up to 50,000 square feet of commercial and then up to 100,000 minus the commercial for self-storage. So if you had no commercial, you could have 100,000 square feet of storage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're capped at 100,000 square feet on this piece of property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we could never go more than 50,000 square feet of commercial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair, do you want to jump in? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on that -- and I'm jumping right to the staff report on Page 307, which is on the Comp Plan, and it's Page 6 of 16 of whichever way you use. My packet number's Page 307, three zero seven -- they are recommending -- it's being found that the subject rezone petition is currently not consistent with the GMP. That sentence would then change, because now you're agreeing to the bullet where it says 100,000 square feet; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- yeah, I guess. Essentially, obviously, we can't have the PUD until we amend the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. But the GMP -- they're recommending disapproval of the GMP. They're saying it's not consistent, but that was predicated on the 150,000. Now it's 100,000. Does that change your statement? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're agreeing with staff's recommendation. MR. BOSI: Staff is in agreement. However they slice it, it could get up to 100,000 square feet of self-storage, and then that would be it. That's the limitation. A hundred thousand square feet is the limitation or a mix of the two, but you could never go beyond the 100,000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for the record, then, the hundred thousand would be deemed consistent? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And further -- and I'm helping you make your case a little bit, perhaps in the interest of expediting things, but the REEI commercial needs analysis found a need for up to 100,000 of self-storage? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And they did not find anything that would have allowed you to go higher than 50K of commercial. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that was never the intention was ever to go above the 50K. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. So the needs analysis supports this point -- March 7, 2024 Page 81 of 103 MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- is the point I'm trying to make. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Thank you. And I don't want to go too fast, but I know you-all have read everything. This is -- this is the existing Future Land Use Map, and you can see this is -- this area right out here is urban residential. This is what will be added to the subdistrict. I'm sorry. This is the existing zoning, C-1 today, ag. And these are the proposed uses that we're adding to the district as far as commercial convenience uses to be added to both the Growth Management Plan and the PUD. I'm going to turn it over now to Chris to take you quickly through what's around us, the master plan, go through the deviation, and then, unless you have questions of me now, we'll answer any questions you may have regarding the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one's signaling. MR. SCOTT: For the record, Chris Scott with Peninsula Engineering, certified planner. This is a proximity map. So the large circles that you see are one-mile boundaries. The green dots shown on this are existing facilities with fuel pumps, as the county recognizes them, or gas stations. So you can see there are no gas stations. The closest gas stations would be to the north along Bonita Beach Road two miles to the north and two miles, as the crow flies, to the south on Immokalee Road but off of Livingston. The proposed zoning would provide some neighborhood scale retail and service uses that's intended to serve the area residents. These are not traffic -- large traffic-generating uses that we anticipate. These would be smaller scale to serve the local needs and not be bringing outside traffic or traffic -- huge traffic generating from outside areas. The convenience provided by these neighborhood-scale retail and service uses would help reduce the vehicle miles traveled by the local residents. This is the proposed Master Concept Plan. It's all for commercial uses. We're showing a -- currently there are two separate parcels. We do show that potential internal property line. There's some stormwater facilities to the west and south of the property. Access would be on Livingston Road as far south as possible with the appropriate compensating right-of-way for a turn lane, as well as along Veterans Memorial Boulevard as far west as -- or excuse me -- east as possible with compensating right-of-way. There is an interconnect to the adjacent Allura RPD. That interconnect goes into their -- behind their front gate, so it would be privately accessed, not open to the public, but it would allow the 304 units at Allura multifamily to access this site without having to get onto the public roadway system. The proposed development standards, the big takeaway here, I would believe, is minimum 25-foot setback to all PUD boundaries. The height limitations are consistent with what is currently allowed in the C-1 zoning and the existing infill subdistrict language, so a maximum zoned height of 35 feet, actual height of 45 feet. This is smaller heights than what are allowed in the neighboring Allura RPD. The PUD does propose some conditions on the property. There's a maximum 225 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. The -- that does work with the limitation, in total, 100,000 square foot that Rich had just spoke to that staff was recommending and we are agreeing to, the interconnection to Allura RPUD, which I had referenced. March 7, 2024 Page 82 of 103 The off-site preservation requirements, this site is fully vegetated. The requirement would be less than a half acre, and the LDC allows for that to be taken off site. So we are proposing to -- because it is such a small site, we're proposing to take that preserve off site through the monetary contribution provisions allowed in the LDC. There would be no adult-oriented sales. Amplified sounds, limitations between 8 and 10 on weekdays, until 11 on weekends. Pole lighting would utilize full cutoff -- flat cutoff shields. If indoor self-storage is to be provided on site, it would have to meet county architectural standards, and we would further restrict it to not allow any overhead doors facing either the roadways or external residential properties. So they would all have to be internally facing only. And then car washes, if provided, would be subject to the enhanced landscaping that would be required for gas stations, which I'll go into in a little more detail here in a second. There are two deviations proposed in the PUD. One deals with the dumpster requirement -- dumpster location. Section 5.05.05 of the LDC has supplemental standards for facilities with fuel pumps. When you're adjacent to residential, it requires a 50-foot setback to all property lines. We are proposing to allow the dumpster to be 30 feet from the east property line. Additionally, the second deviation requires a 40-foot setback for a facility with fuel pumps and car washes to maintain a 40-foot setback from all property lines when they are adjacent to a residential district. And we are -- the deviation is to allow for a 15-foot setback to any internal lot line. So it wouldn't be any closer to the public streets or the adjacent properties, but only to that internal lot line. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it a fair statement that only the -- only the dumpsters could be closer to the residential lot lines? MR. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And the fuel pumps and fuel tanks are all still going to have to be the same distance away? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. SCOTT: This is a conceptual land plan that we provided to staff to kind of illustrate that. What you see clouded in red would be a dumpster location. That is 30 feet from the eastern property line. Please note the orientation of this has shifted 90 degrees clockwise. So north is to the right on the screen. But separating that dumpster from the property line itself would be a 30-foot buffer with a three and a half -- 3-foot berm as well as an 8-foot wall on top of that berm. This shows the profile of that. So on the left-hand side would be the Allura property. They have existing single-story garages on their western boundary with their existing landscape buffer. Then you have the property line. So on the subject property would be the 30-foot landscape buffer. It requires trees 30-foot on center on each side of the wall, a 5-foot hedge on each side of an 8-foot wall, and, again, that's on top of a 3-foot undulating berm. It's important to note that that berm height is measured from the adjacent vehicle use driveway elevation and not the property line elevation, which is kind of that low point drainage swale. March 7, 2024 Page 83 of 103 The Growth Management Plan amendment is consistent with Florida Statutes and the Collier County GMP. There was data and analysis demonstrating that the additional supply of commercial acreage and square footage could be supported both by existing and future populations. The site, again, is located at a signalized intersection of an arterial and collector roadway. The only non-right-of-way abutting property is a higher density multifamily project, which makes this suitable for some limited commercial. It's an existing urban area where public utilities are readily available, and the uses are appropriately scaled for this infill lot. It will help reduce vehicle miles traveled and discourage sprawl. The site doesn't include any environmentally sensitive lands or listed species habitat, and the development will be compatible and complementary with surrounding land uses. Similarly, the PUD is consistent with the criteria established in the Land Development Code. It's a suitable area for the type and pattern of development proposed. It's controlled by one entity. It conforms to both the GMP with the subdistrict designation should it be approved. The heights, uses, setbacks, and development standards are compatible, and we are proposing some additional development commitments to ensure that compatibility with the surrounding residential land uses. Also, the deviations are justified as meeting a public purpose. Staff has reviewed both the GMPA and the PUD, and other than the recommendation to limit the total square footage on the site to 100,000 square feet, which we agree to, they found the application sufficient and recommended approval, and we would respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission, any questions, comments? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you for that. Very informative. Quick question. This letter of concern that was in our packets says you're asking for deviations from existing setback regulations. Is that true or not? MR. SCOTT: The only setback deviation -- and I'll pull up the conceptual -- would be to this internal lot line. So that's the only deviation to a setback requirement that would be asked for. It would meet all setback requirements to the perimeter of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. And then the letter has a lot of concerns with regards to gasoline -- gas stations close to residential homes and health effects that occur from those. Were those brought up during your NIM at all or -- MR. SCOTT: No. I didn't see those until I had requested a copy of the e-mail that was referenced in the staff report. I will note that this is a new gas station facility, and Florida Administrative Code requires benzine shielding on both the pumps -- individual pumps and at the filling station today to help minimize those concerns, I would think. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. That's all I have for right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else, sir? MR. SCOTT: Not from me, no. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thanks. March 7, 2024 Page 84 of 103 Mr. Yovanovich, anything else from the applicant at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Let me ask if Commissioner Klucik is back. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yep. Yes, I'm here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Can you give us your ex partes, please, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have none. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. We will now turn to staff for its report. And here comes Mr. Sabo. MR. SABO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager. We -- with the change to the GMP language down to 100,000 square feet, we recommend that the Board forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. I'll entertain any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions or comments from up here? (No response.) MR. SABO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik, anything, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. With that, we will ask for any registered speakers who may now be heard. Ms. Padron. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there's two. Jerry Garland and Bill Bowden. They can take each podium. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. GARLAND: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good afternoon. MR. GARLAND: Thank you for taking the time to hear a comment or two that I may have on this project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you Mr. Garden? MR. GARLAND: I am Jerry Garland. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Garland. Thank you. MR. GARLAND: My address is 16435 Celebrita Court. I am the house closest to this project. And I am within, you might say, a chip shot of this property. I have not kept up with the project as it goes along. I mean, the first notice that I received on this project indicated that the decision was for a 100,000-square-foot storage facility and an up-to-50,000-square-foot gas station. In addition to those two things -- and I understand it's been reduced to 100,000. In addition to that, we're talking about gas pumps, we're talking about a car wash, we're talking about the parking necessary to accomplish that, and obviously the property ingress and egress from this facility. I would say for four acres that's quite a lot. That is a very concentrated bit of retail. I've been in retail all my career for many, many years dealing with lots of zoning issues and lots of presentations. But to put that kind of concentrated business into any kind of facility or parcel is building the concentration up to more than what is normal. March 7, 2024 Page 85 of 103 In addition, this particular site is in the middle of all residential. You would have to travel far and wide, at least over another mile, to find any other commercial in this area. This is bedrooms, multifamily, as well as single-family homes. This is schools. This is a fire department and a police station right there in this area. But this is the first commercial that's coming into this area. I have owned this house since 2009. I have seen all the development. And, obviously, the traffic has grown over time, but I think this Planning Commission needs to be concerned with what's going on at Livingston from a global perspective, because by the time Veterans gets opened up, as I hear it's going to be, and the other changes that come along, this is going to be a highly traveled corridor. This is going to impact the quality of life of all the people that live there. I would ask that any action at this point be put on hold until there's an opportunity for the petitioner to meet with the people that are affected to talk about this project because we know very little about this project. This is the only information that I've received. So I would appreciate the action of this committee to ask the petitioner to come back and meet with people from my side of the street, that side of the street, and get their opinion on what the impact of that project's going to be on the quality of life in North Naples. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, Bill Bowden is the next speaker, and that's the last speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. MR. BOWDEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Bill Bowden. I'm the general manager of the Mediterra community. As Jerry had said -- I'll just elaborate a little bit more. Since, well, its entirety, there's been no commercial development from Immokalee to Bonita Beach Road. It's been entirely residential. There is a fire station. There's a school. So this is new. And for a community that is directly across from this and very close to it, it affects at least six of our neighborhoods, and it's something that -- you know, change is here. We know that. We saw Veterans Memorial go in. We know it's going to expand to U.S. 41. We saw the high school go in. We know change is imminent. So this is -- I guess it's a shock, it's a surprise, it's a disappointment to a lot of our residents, but the reality is change is here. I don't think there's a big issue with a storage facility or a retail. It could be an aesthetically nicely [sic]. It can blend in as it's supposed to, and we hope it does. It's the gas station that has our residents really upset, because it's so close to some of their homes. It's closer to Allura, but it's very, very close to their homes. And with a gas station, you have elements that come into play that, I'm saying, get people really fired up. And noise. Car leaves with a full tank of gas, or a motorcycle at 11 o'clock at night. That's disturbing, especially when you've lived peacefully there for a long time. Lighting, ambient lighting. We know LED spots down. It directs light. But gas stations are brightly lit, and you have the baseball field effect. You've got gas vapors. Yes, our residents have researched and Googled the harmful effects of gas vapor. Of course, they've also looked at vapor recovery systems. March 7, 2024 Page 86 of 103 They're not inexpensive. And traffic. I -- we could argue forever, but if you put a gas station there, you will attract traffic to the intersection. Right now it goes away to Immokalee and Bonita. It will attract it. And some people will find out that even though they live a little further away, it's quicker to make a right turn and be there. So it's going to increase traffic. But I've read the county reports. I've read the zoning report. I've read the Growth Management report, and they both recommended for this to move ahead. It seems like this is moving along very, very quickly. So I don't know how productive it is for me to stand here with arms crossed and say, no, we don't want it. I do agree with Jerry that we wish we have more information. I haven't seen renderings. We don't know aesthetically what it would look like. I believe in part of the presentation in the NIM, that part of the buffer was a retail side between the gas station and Mediterra. Maybe I read it wrong. But, again, I've looked around, and when you go around, you see a lot of gas stations, but there's considerable buffer between that and anybody's home. More retail, larger parking lots, much greater expanse. This is very, very close. If this is green-lighted and if this is going to go through, my question is, how do we bridge between county code minimums, which -- you know, I'm familiar with them. And they allow it to happen. How do you bridge between that and the reality of having something that complements the neighborhood that everyone could be partners in progress with? I'll give you an example. Years and years ago a hotel was built in Olde Naples at a very busy intersection, high profile, and it dubiously earned the title of the ugliest building in Naples. It still is. It met all the requirements to check the box on everything, but it got built, and it didn't add much to the appeal of Olde Naples. You know, like I'm saying, we could take the emotional side and say no, no, we'll fight it, but that is a piece of commercial land. It is going to be developed. We're just sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place. I can speak on -- probably on behalf of everybody that lives in that proximity, the six neighborhoods. I don't think any of them really appreciate this. But it's the gas station that has them upset the most. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Anyone in the room who has not registered but nonetheless would like to be heard on this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALL: Seeing none, we will close the public comment portion of this hearing and ask the applicant if he has rebuttal. Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to ask Rich something, but go ahead with your rebuttal, Rich, and then I'll follow up and ask. MR. YOVANOVICH: Go ahead, if you don't mind, Commissioner Schmitt. We're -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have two questions, then. While you're looking, one is the existing zoning on the corner lot is C-1? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. March 7, 2024 Page 87 of 103 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because what I've heard from -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's been -- and I remember that going through in 2004. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. What I heard from -- is it Mr. Garland? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, that's his name. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That it is commercial. Nobody's -- it's kind of implied that this was never identified to be commercial, but it is C-1 zoning; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Since 2004, both the Growth Management Plan and zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: This property is commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it is commercial. C-1 intensity allows what? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's basically office. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Office. MR. YOVANOVICH: Office use, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The other one, the comment -- I'm just following up on two comments I heard. But the second was being notified. By receiving notification, as I understand, they were part of the list of residents who received notice under the neighborhood information meeting requirements for the neighborhood information meeting with the clear explanation of who they can contact for additional information? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I noted that this is a petition from 2022? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's been around well over two years, almost two years. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And -- yes is the answer to that question. A couple things I would add, as you're looking at this aerial, you'll notice that -- and I think Mike Sawyer probably is the best person to confirm the number. But I think that that right-of-way is about 200 feet -- I don't know if it's 150 or 200 feet in width for Livingston Road right-of-way. Plus, we have, you know, our setbacks. They have their setbacks and their buffer. We are not right on top of any home in Mediterra as far as proposed development goes. The whole -- I mean, I know people talk about gas stations, but these are not the gas stations that were built many, many, many years ago. The safeguards that are in place and the county's regulations that are in place for facilities with fuel pumps are significant and very stringent on what we -- what is being proposed. I do have -- I do have some conceptual renderings that we can go through to show kind of how the buffering -- and I want to point out, you know, I've known -- Bill and I go way back. There has been a change in the leadership at Mediterra, so I have worked with the prior leadership at Mediterra. So this is not a surprise to Mediterra on what's being proposed on this section. I'm not going to -- I don't know what was shared with all of their residents, but we have talked about this project with that leadership. You could see -- you could see the various distances -- I'm really getting old -- that separate us from -- and those are property lines. I mean, it looks like it's 587 feet from a -- from a portion of the property to the other, and 405 feet, I think, at the closest for, I March 7, 2024 Page 88 of 103 guess, where the fuel pumps would be. So we're a significant distance from the residents of Mediterra. And, you know, that's a major intersection. I don't truly believe -- I think that the primary people who are going to use these facilities are already on Livingston Road traveling north and south probably living in Mediterra, probably living in Allura, probably living in -- I think it's Pelican Strand or The Strand, I'm sorry, and their back entrance. I think they'll be -- the primary users of all of these facilities are going to be the residential homes already around them. This will alleviate some of the traffic that's already on Immokalee Road. And that's -- we all know Immokalee Road is a little bit challenging, especially around Livingston Road as well as a little bit to the east when you're talking about the entrance of The Strand where the Walmart is -- is it Walmart? Yeah, it's Walmart. So, I mean, this is -- this is, you know, very well situated, will provide, you know, services to those residences around keeping -- and it's not unusual to have commercial at a major intersection that has residential around it. Going kind of to the conceptual renderings, obviously this is an elevated view looking down. There is significant landscaping along both -- you'll see both Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me one second. Mr. Garland, you may feel free to sit down if you wish. MR. GARLAND: I'd just like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Unfortunately, we've closed public comment. MR. GARLAND: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. This is a view, street level, at the corner. You can see it's very well landscaped, very attractive, very consistent with the communities that are around it. This is -- this is kind of going north along Livingston Road. This is the southern entrance to the project, assuming that that portion's developed as retail. And I'm not sure Mr. Garland knows that there are architectural standards that are applicable to both retail development as well as the indoor self-storage that will be applicable to this piece of property. And in order to get to the higher number of 100,000 square feet, that's going to be the required use of indoor self-storage, which is clearly a low traffic generator, and they're very attractive throughout Collier County. And I don't think there's any question about a need or demand for that type of use in Collier County. It's not a high-intensity use when you put indoor self-storage on a parcel of property. Again, from Veterans -- looking from Veterans Memorial, you can see the landscaping that's in place. We could talk about if there needs to be some additional supplemental landscaping, but right now that's an attractive buffer from the side. That's what we have as far as renderings to show how the landscaping would work and what's being proposed. Your staff is recommending approval. Mr. Trebilcock can get up here and testify about traffic impacts if you would like him to, but we are requesting that you follow your staff's recommendation with regard to recommending approval of both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the PUD with the change that we've made to reduce the overall square footage to a maximum of 100,000 square feet. March 7, 2024 Page 89 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling. Let me ask a question. What is the -- what is the nearest gas station? MR. YOVANOVICH: You'd have to go -- well, two miles north and two miles south, but let me -- I think the circle -- it's kind of important, what you're looking at, the nearest gas station to the south, that's The Strand. If you all are familiar with that -- to the -- that's -- just to the south of The Strand is that Walmart. Is that Juliet? I forget -- yeah, Juliet, yeah. That's a tough intersection. I'm not sure -- I think this will help people who are living in the area to get their fuel and not have to go down to Immokalee Road to get fuel for their vehicles. Likewise, if you were to go north, you'd have to go all the way up to Bonita Beach Road, which is up in this area as well. So this will be a convenient location and will relieve traffic. Whether you want to believe it or not, it will relieve traffic on the road to get gas and other retail services. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now we have Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You made a statement. I just want to make sure, for the record, it was clear that it's your interpretation that even the past manager of Mediterra was aware that this was going to be commercial? MR. YOVANOVICH: Bill is the past manager, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, Bill's the past manager. MR. YOVANOVICH: There were past leadership, the past president and one of the vice presidents. Alan was the vice president, right? Yeah, I met with them and told them what was going on, and we discussed it. There's been a change in leadership. That's fine. But I just -- I just wanted to make sure, it's not like we were playing hide the ball. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Question for Mr. Bosi. Isn't there -- I think it was after Irma maybe -- gas stations go in, they're required to have a generator? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. So, obviously, hurricane -- even after Idalia, we had issues with gas, because some of those gas stations don't have generators. New ones go in; they do have to have generators. I lived on Livingston back in 2005. It was the first house me and my wife -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, you said something important, and I wasn't able to -- my mind was wandering. Would you say it again. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I do it all the time. Gas stations go in; they're required to have a generator. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the one two miles south would not have a generator? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Some of them might or might not if they did not retrofit, but the new ones going in would have to have generators. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Some of them that are near the proximity -- and I can't remember the distance -- of an interstate had to be retrofitted with generators. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So that might have been the one at The Strand. You might have the 7-Eleven that's just east of that side. But the Circle K that sits closest to Immokalee probably would not. March 7, 2024 Page 90 of 103 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wouldn't know if they had it, but there was a requirement. I think it was right at the exit there were certain requirements for gas stations near -- service stations near interstates had to have -- be retrofitted with generators. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: But as Mr. Bosi said, the new ones going in do have to have generators. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Obviously after Irma, that's the most important thing that we need is gasoline. Likewise, traffic on that road has always been tough since 2004, or since they opened in 2003. I forget the year they opened. The amount of development on that road and that one lot being commercial, I can remember taking my daughter to Veterans to school and seeing a sign out there "for sale zoned commercial." She's a freshman at UCF, so that tells you how long ago that was. It's always been widely known that that was going to be a developed area. I agree with the residents of Mediterra, I wish there was a way to flip it maybe so that they didn't have to worry about the light interference. Given the buffer that's required and looking at the Google Maps, judging by the -- it looks like the black olive and oak trees that they have along their perimeter wall, I'm not sure how much light is going to go 500 feet across the road and into their property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Bosi, were you going to add to that conversation at all -- MR. BOSI: No, I was just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- about generators? MR. BOSI: I was just going to agree with both the statement from Commissioner Schumacher as well as Commissioner Schmitt that the new gas stations are required to have generators, and I think it was within a mile of an interstate that the older gas stations were required to retrofit. But the older ones are not unless they come in for a Site Development Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. No one else is signaling at this time. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I could just piggyback off the comment about lighting, there are stringent lighting standards for gas stations near residential. So light pollution isn't going to be one of the -- it's not going to be an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else want to be heard on this before we -- I assume you're done with rebuttal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So now it would be appropriate for us to deliberate and entertain a motion. I'm going to make a comment, but I want to see if anybody else wants to go first. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm going to vote favorably on this, but I want to -- I want to express a concern that fortunately, I think, has, in my opinion at least, has been adequately dealt with, and that's -- again, REEI has some standard language in March 7, 2024 Page 91 of 103 their -- in their consulting output that basically takes issue with the way staff counts supply of commercial property. And you can agree or disagree with staff's point of view, but that's -- that's the rule that we have right now. We count property that is permitted commercial whether it's broken ground or been -- or they've had a PUD or any other step toward actual fruition. So, you know, every time I see this from REEI I'm going to object to it in hopes that maybe they will, at some point, concede to play ball under the rules that the county has, or if they want to go to the Board of County Commissioners and try to get the rules changed, that's fine, too. So that's one thing. The other thing -- and I think I would say this as a point of compliment to REEI for their candor, they did -- they were not able to conclude a commercial needs analysis favorable to a gas station and, ordinarily, that would be a major concern to me. All they were able to say is "no adverse effect." And to me, that is a much lesser standard than a need. But, once again, I think common sense gets to prevail here, and the proximity to Allura, the interconnection with Allura, the proximity to Mediterra, to me -- and one of the -- one of the speakers indicated that gas stations were nowhere near as an argument why they shouldn't be. But in point of fact, it seems to me that the need is met by common sense. Now, I'm not going to be willing to concede that when we don't have -- when we don't have consultants coming in who find a need, but in this case I'm able to say that, in my judgment, common sense prevails that there is a need for a gas station there. So having said that, for those reasons, I'm going to vote favorably on it. Anybody else want to be heard? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to -- I agree, and I'm going to vote favorable based on the agreement to reduce the square footage as proposed by staff. I don't see that this becomes problematic. It is certainly, even for the renderings -- and for the public, typically staff does not require renderings. That is not a requirement for a zoning, but I appreciate the applicant showing those, and they are now a matter of record. So they can be looked at as part of either the SDP or when they go through the final building design process. So they, again, are part of the public record as being offered and proffered as what could be built as a similar type of development. So I would -- I would vote approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's more of a question for Mike. Right now the northern parcel is zoned C-1. The southern parcel is -- what could they put on that without coming to us? MR. BOSI: I believe it's probably zoned agriculture. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It looks like an A on there, yeah. And under the growth management, what was the intent of -- MR. BOSI: So the growth management's urban residential -- the growth management is urban residential, meaning it's urban residential. Ag is a holding pattern. Ag is a -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I understand. MR. BOSI: So it is encouraged for urban residential type of use. It's not -- it's not designated commercial, but the GMP amendment is designating that parcel commercial. But from a GMP standpoint, the PUD, then, effectuates and allows for the March 7, 2024 Page 92 of 103 commercial that the GMP is providing for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So are we at all -- I get to the question you brought up before with Live Local. Anytime we add a C to something, are we exposing ourselves to anything in terms of somebody coming along? MR. BOSI: The southern parcels, as it is currently zoned, would not be eligible for Live Local. As it is moving forward, it potentially could be utilized for Live Local. I wanted to let -- in the prior -- and not to bring up the morning, because we're not going to go to those discussions, but I wanted to let the Planning Commission know on April 9th I am going to the Board of County Commissioners saying how staff has interpreted the Live Local to apply towards PUDs. You heard a contrarian position from the County Attorney's Office. We're going to ask the Board of County Commissioners to provide arbitration on that to set the policy for how staff will be moving forward. We'll report that to the Planning Commission after that hearing. But as of -- as of now, it would -- it would potentially add additional two-plus acres that would be eligible for Live Local. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if Jeff's right, it's in a PUD, so it wouldn't be. MR. BOSI: If the Board agrees with the County Attorney's Office, their policy would be it would not apply and then, ultimately, the courts would be the final arbitration on that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I jump in on this conversation just real briefly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I get nervous when you-all worry about this becoming a commercial parcel and Live Local's going to jump in here. Part of the story that you-all don't know is that we have to meet the RMF-16 development standards to do Live Local, and we would have to have a 60 percent open-space requirement. There's no way on 4.6 acres that you could do any type of Live Local project of any means. So I get worried about this fear that you-all have that, oh, my goodness, we're going to allow some commercial; this could be the steppingstone to some 92-unit-per-acre high intensity, high height project resulting as a result of your doing that. And Mike can correct me if I'm wrong on anything I just said as to how it actually is applied and the likely outcome. So if you're worried about that being the result of this because I can no longer waive -- or right to use the Live Local statute, I think it's a fear that you shouldn't be worried about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll just say, before I call on Commissioner Schumacher, that in my humble opinion -- of course, whoever gets to name something gets an advantage in how you market it to the public. It's not "live local" at all. It's "regulate remotely." It's regulation from Tallahassee, and I find that objectionable. But that's just my point of view. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree. Excuse me. On the Live Local, we approved a -- not a Live Local project, but the apartments on Vanderbilt and Livingston, and that was, like, 5.2 acres. Am I wrong? The old March 7, 2024 Page 93 of 103 equestrian center and safari animal, that's, like, five and a half acres, right? And this is 4.6. So, technically, how many units could you put on that if you really wanted to? And that one that's zoned commercial, if you wanted to do Live Local -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The difference in that project is the development standards are different than the RMF-16 development standards. They're -- so it's not -- it's not apples to apples. And that was a Growth Management Plan amendment that had to do with providing income-restricted housing. I know Live Local does the same, but there were different -- different development standards than RMF-16. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. No, I was wondering if that one parcel's zoned commercial, if you weren't going to do this and somebody came in other than you, Rich, and said -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we would come in -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- can you do Live Local here, how many units could you fit on that piece of land? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we could -- you know, first of all, we could come in and use your affordable housing density bonus. I'm an infill piece less than 20 acres, so I'm starting at seven units an acre, and I could -- I could throw a whole bunch of affordable housing on there, and we could -- we could probably get to -- if you take that project, 25 units an acre, probably 120 homes there. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: 120? MR. YOVANOVICH: Ballpark, you know. That's lawyer math, but close. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I think self-storage and a gas station sounds a lot better of a service than 120, which would add to more traffic and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- more density. All right. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to make a motion to approve both the GMP amendment and the accompanying PUD amendment as agreed to by the petitioner to reduce to a thousand -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 100,000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- 100,000 square foot or a combination thereof between commercial and self-storage or office. I make that motion. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second -- okay, good. And we -- our approval as environmental advisory commission -- or council is not necessary in this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, no EOC -- EAC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'm going to state this again. I think -- I think we're all in agreement, but just -- the change would be that the uses would be up to 50,000 square feet of commercial and 100,000 -- up to 100,000 feet, minus what gets actually used as commercial, for self-storage. So they could have 100,000 self-storage and no commercial. They could have 50/50, but the limit would be 100,000. Did I say that right, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. March 7, 2024 Page 94 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's the change that we're about to vote on. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously, and that's 5-0. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now, let's see. We now can go into the staff-initiated matters. Do you have a preference which one goes first based upon who's available, who's here? So who's going to go first so I can call them? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I just make a comment on the last petition? Repeatedly we often hear residents who say they're not notified. I don't know what else we can do, I really don't. Between letters, signs, advertisements, I just don't know, other than being -- staff knocking on everybody's door, I don't know what we can do. We have a resident come up and said we knew nothing about this but had the letter that tells them who to contact and the information and I believe even a website they could look to; is that correct? MR. BOSI: And I would add, if they had received the notification of the hearing, they would have a received a notification of the neighborhood information meeting to -- well before this hearing had taken place. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Really, the only -- the only thing that we would -- that we would consider is if someone said that the ordinance-specified steps were not complied with -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but no one is saying that. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: In all fairness, Chair, I received a notification for that apartment complex that was going in next to the cemetery. The first one, my -- one of my kids threw in the recycle bin because it doesn't -- it just looks like -- it looks like an advertisement piece of mailing. So I don't know if there's some wording we change on the front of that to say "notice of land use change" or something on that envelope. I don't know if there's a way to change that address, because I've heard that multiple times. But you look at the mailing list, and it's on the mailing list. You see that people have received it, and they come in here with their second notice, and it's like -- I understand completely where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A big red stamp that says, "Don't throw in trash." COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: "Not advertisement. Land use" -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. So since we have Mr. Sabo up here, I assume that we're going to do the water supply first. So let me call that, please. ***That's going to be PL20240000400, the 10-year water supply facilities work March 7, 2024 Page 95 of 103 plan large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. And, of course, that means this comes to us on transmittal. We're going to have another bite at the apple when it come back for adoption. And since this is purely legislative in nature, no need for ex partes or swearing in of witnesses. And with that, Mr. Sabo, you have the floor. MR. SABO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager. This is a very straightforward Growth Management Plan amendment, Policy 1.7 of the potable water supply sub-element of the GMP. Requests or -- I'm at a loss for words -- requires us to update or 10-year water supply demand facilities work plan every five years. So we did this last in 2019, and it's 2024. So the report you have has updated numbers for gallons-per-day consumption. And I'm not a water expert guy, so I won't pretend to give you details on that. There is -- as Ms. DeJohn tells me, there's a scrivener error in the numbers, and Alec from Johnson Engineering is going to come to the podium and clarify that. But our recommendation is to just forward this to the Department of Commerce for transmittal, and then we'll bring it back to you at a later date and then forward to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before you leave us -- and I think I know the answer, but it's worth making a record on. In the case of potable water systems, currently we're at 150 gallons per capita per day in the county water district and 100 gallons per capita per day for sanitary sewer, and we're going down to 90. So it's a reduction in our perception of what our county's requirements are going to be. Could you say a word to give us comfort why it's okay to reduce that number? MR. SABO: I would -- I would defer to our consultant for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair enough. MR. SABO: Just one last note, Mr. Chairman. This is both CCPC and Environmental Advisory Commission [sic] approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SABO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. CODY: Drew Cody, Collier County Public Utilities. To your question, Chairman, we've observed our water usage over the last 15 years, and it's steadily come down, and it's stabilized a little bit below that 130 and that 90 number over the last five years, and we're comfortable making the amendment at this time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I needed to hear. Thank you very much. No one else is signaling at this time. May I take it that no one has any questions or comments for staff? This is -- this is staff initiated, so from here we would go right to public comment, if any, and so I ask if there are any registered speakers at this time. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And I'm also going to make a quantum leap of logic, and since I don't see any members of the public here, I'm going to guess that there are no people who haven't registered but, nonetheless, wish to be heard on this. So with that, we will close the public comment -- Mr. Bosi. March 7, 2024 Page 96 of 103 MR. BOSI: I just want to -- I just wanted to know, would you like to hear the area that needed a little correction from a scrivener's error -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Let's make that record, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You need to put that on the record. MR. PIIRONEN: Alec Piironen with Johnson Engineering. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you say your name again. MR. PIIRONEN: Alec Piironen with Johnson Engineering. The correction to note is we'll be making the work plan document before we transmit to state agencies. We need to correct two numbers on Page 12 of the work plan. This falls within Section 3.4, level-of-service standard, related to Ave Maria Utility Companies and Port of the Islands' wastewater treatment service levels. For Ave Maria, the 135 needs to change to 80 gallons per capita -- or per day per capita, and for Port of the Islands, 100 needs to change based on confirmation with Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. The -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Change to what? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you hear the question, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: You didn't give the -- unless I missed it, what the second -- the Islands was changed to. MR. PIIRONEN: For Port of the Islands, that will be based on coordination with Port of the Islands' contacts we've been working with. So we've been working directly with Collier County Water Sewer District, Immokalee Water Sewer District, Ave Maria Utility Company, and Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. With those contacts we've been, you know, coordinating the appropriate data to include in the plan. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I must have missed it. But you were changing a number to another number. What were the -- what was the change on the Islands? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It doesn't sound like they have. MR. PIIRONEN: No. Currently, no. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh. Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So if you could, of course, I would take particular interest, what is the actual change then? Why are you -- what is the scrivener's error? MR. PIIRONEN: The value reflected now we believe needs to be revisited based on further confirmation with Port of the Islands. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So at some point there's going to be a number plugged in there? COMMISSIONER SHEA: A different number. MR. PIIRONEN: A corrected number. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Why are we acting on it now then? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I don't feel comfortable when we don't have a number. If the scrivener's error is "we'll figure it out later," then, yeah, I don't feel good about that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I guess -- I mean, we are going to hear this again on adoption, but it still is unusual to come in, you know, with an open-ended thing like that. March 7, 2024 Page 97 of 103 Is there some urgency to this, some reason why we need to -- MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, James Sabo. There is an urgency in that we have to get these approved and adopted by June of 2024. So we're trying to move this along. If you're not comfortable, I understand that, but we would ask that you -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think the important thing is we're talking about a small number. We're not talking about the big -- the big numbers are all in there. We're talking about an adjustment to a small number. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you give us a "not less than" or "not greater than," some kind of range? MR. PIIRONEN: Based on preliminary information, we have 100 to 129. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's going to be the -- okay. So we've got -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's going up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We've got something to work with. Commissioner Klucik, does that work for you? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Say that number again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 120 [sic] to 129 is the range. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And where does that fit in? I'm sorry. I'm trying to -- I did a search on the -- to try to find where this is, and now -- if you keep hearing that noise, it's because my thing is locked up. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. MR. PIIRONEN: These numbers are listed in Page 12 of the work plan, and that's within Section 3.14, level-of-service standard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we don't have a number -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you don't have a number in there now, and what you're saying is that you know the number is going to be between what? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 120 [sic] and 129. MR. PIIRONEN: For Port of the Islands, we -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Currently what is the figure that's required? MR. PIIRONEN: Currently, in the work plan, Port of the Islands is listed as 100 gallons per day per capita. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm more interested in Ave Maria, just like -- just because it's where I live. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's not changing in Ave Maria. MR. PIIRONEN: Ave Maria wastewater, the level 135 gallons per capita -- or per day per capita will be revised to 80 gallons per day per capita. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So that utility is actually -- this is for the -- for the irrigation, you said, only? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. MR. PIIRONEN: This is for the wastewater. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Wastewater. Okay. For the wastewater. So this is -- this is for the private utility, then. So the wastewater capacity is being reduced by a pretty substantial number there. MR. PIIRONEN: The number that's included right now, the 135 value, that is a scrivener's error. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, okay. So that was just -- all right. Got it. We're not changing anything. We're just correcting how this was drafted, all right. March 7, 2024 Page 98 of 103 MR. PIIRONEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to make a motion we recommend approval of PL20240000400, it's the 10-year water supply facilities work plan. I'm making a recommendation of approval as both the Planning Commission and as -- sitting as the EAC subject to -- when this comes back, to make a note of the definitive scrivener error changes through either strikethrough or an underline or double underline, or however you want to do it, so it's noted, when it comes back, where the changes are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously 5-0. Thank you. MR. PIIRONEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Next matter, and the last matter, is PL20230018350, the removal of exotic vegetation updates, Land Development Code amendment. Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Thank you. Eric Johnson, LDC planning manager. I wanted to let you know that I do have something to hand out for you as a walk-on item, but let me explain how -- where we were and how -- and where we'd like to go. So this legislative matter would change -- would amend the Land Development Code, specifically LDC Section 3.05.08. It has to do with the prohibited exotic vegetation. We've had exotic vegetation removal requirements as well as tree preservation provisions on the books for many, many years; however, on December 12th of last year, under staff and commission general communications, Commissioner Hall requested that staff update the LDC as it pertains to the removal of exotic vegetation. In your LDC packet or, rather, in your commission packet, I included -- or was included the minutes of that meeting so you can get a feel for what the Board of County Commissioners -- the commissioners had directed staff to move forward on. Today's matter would specifically amend 3.05.08, Paragraph C as in Charlie. That's in the packet. But what I'd like to do is hand out to you something a little bit different, and the reason for this is because as we were going through the process finalizing the language, there was some discussions back and forth between staff and the County Attorney's Office to try to come up with the language that would be acceptable for all. March 7, 2024 Page 99 of 103 So the language that's in your packets right now was not approved by the County Attorney's Office with respect to form and legality. As I pass out the slight changes, I'm also going to kind of direct any questions really to Director Jaime Cook who can help lead -- you know, lead the discussion about how -- what specifically the changes are and how that would impact the county as it pertains to the removal of exotic plants. On the books right now, we still have 12 listed species that have to be removed. The way the amendment is to be proposed is that it would change the regulations specifically to the Estates-zoned lots, a single -- as you can see in the code, you know, Estates, although it's an agricultural type of zoning district, single-family and two -- single-family homes are allowed on those types of parcels. And so there is the desire to really focus on what we would call the county-approved cleared area as well as seven and a half feet around the perimeter of the property, and that's what I'm going to show you in here. And for Commissioner Klucik, we're going to put that on the screen so that he could see the changes as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And before I call on the vice chairman, to complete the record, I want to announce that the matter is purely legislative in nature. No quasi-judicial component, so no need to swear in witnesses. No need for ex parte disclosures. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. From the standpoint -- and, Jaime, you can come -- this is strictly being amended to apply to Estates zoning, is that correct? MS. COOK: For the record, Jaime Cook, the director of Development Review. Yes, this amendment will apply only to Estates-zoned lots. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I make sure I understand that? Is that Golden Gate -- in the Golden Gate area, or anything -- any Estates-size lot? MS. COOK: Estates-zoned lots. It does include the Rural Golden Gate Estates, but it also includes Livingston Woods, Logan Woods, and the Oakes Estates area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It includes anything that's E on the zoning map, which are Estates. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. COOK: Pine Ridge is zoned -- and Mike can correct me if I'm wrong -- but RSF-1 in many areas. MR. BOSI: And a little bit of ag. MS. COOK: And a little bit of ag. MR. BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it has to be E, as Estates. I cannot support this. I disagree. I support the DSAC recommendation. The purpose of -- this has been in the county since, gosh, I think -- I asked you, but I believe, what, 2004. But it even predates that, well into the '90s when the requirement was to remove exotics. Anybody that comes in to do work and submits a plat or a plan have to remove the exotics from the development area. Sometimes I even disagree with large developments that do incremental development. My personal opinion is once the entire area's zoned, they should remove the exotics, because it could be 20, 25 years before the entire development. A 4,000-acre development or 3,000-acre development, typically, they do it in phases. And so they sort of get over because they're only doing it in phases but, yet, when they come for a plat or March 7, 2024 Page 100 of 103 plan, they have to remove all the exotics from that impacted area; is that correct? MS. COOK: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So this is just saying the Estates, you get a special exemption, and we're not -- you don't have to remove exotics. MS. COOK: It's -- well, it's not that they don't have to remove them at all. So when they apply for a building permit, current zoning allows for them to remove up to one acre of vegetation, native or exotic, to build their home, driveway, septic system, well, whatever their -- whatever is in their building permit. With that, they currently have to remove the exotics from the entire property. This amendment would still require them to remove it for that up to one acre that it is approved to be cleared as well as seven and a half feet from all property lines as a way to help with life-safety and potentially fire issues so that if there are any wildfires in the area, they don't extend to neighboring properties and put any other structures in danger. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, so we're basically exempting all of the Estates zoning from removing of exotics. Only -- they're going to have to clear some areas, but some areas will remain? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which really does nothing other than perpetuate the species and allows for seeds to spread and all the other types of activities that happens if you don't remove the exotics. Essentially, it negates the requirement. So I will not support this. I recommend disapproval. I support the DSAC's position. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What do we have in place now? So for any of the land that the county owns, what is the requirement for the county to take action? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You come in -- you come in for a plat or a plan to develop -- either submit an SDP or you submit a subdevelopment plan. You have to clear the exotics before you develop it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's not my question. And my question really regards the county itself. So the county owns land. The county owns right-of-ways. And I'm pretty sure there's lots of exotics on county-owned land and county-owned right-of-ways. And I'm just trying to figure out, are we doing -- is county doing what it should be doing, or are we just mandating that everybody else do it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll turn to Jaime. Those right-of-ways are -- they're considered developable land. If there's exotic on -- MS. COOK: Correct. And typically, especially out in the Estates, the right-of-way, actually, property lines extend into most of those roadways. So the right-of-way itself is still owned by that property owner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's right. That's not county right-of-way. MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There may be a drainage easement, but that's not county right-of-way. MS. COOK: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I live in District 3. I live in Golden Gate March 7, 2024 Page 101 of 103 Estates. I've had to clear exotics. My neighbors have had to clear exotics. The two new houses built on my street had to clear exotics. I can't support this, but I want to thank staff for their time on this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm sure there's better things you could have done than tried to rewrite exotic removal because, from the notes that I see from that meeting, it seems like there was some disconnect and reasons for somebody having to clear out their property and then complaining to a commissioner about it. The clearing of exotics is extremely important, as we've seen. I think if we brought in Fish and Game, they would say the same thing. Florida Wildlife, they're pretty stringent on exotics. If you drive into Lee County, you can see the Melaleuca climbing all over each other along 75 as well as any one of the other roads that you drive down. So I think the exotic removal program that Collier County has in place, there's no reason to change it. I think it's -- I think it's a great program. I think it serves its purpose. If you have lots that you're not developing, then you don't have to start taking the exotics out. If you do, then you do. That's just the way it works. I'm sure it's the same with the county. If the county goes in to develop a piece of their own property, they have to do the same thing. But to change it and say, let's not require it unless you're putting a new structure on, like developing the lot, it doesn't serve a purpose. It just creates more of a headache, because that's how the Brazilian pepper spreads, that's how ear acacia spreads. I don't see a purpose in this, and I won't support it. But, again, I thank the staff for their time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Question for Ms. Cook. What -- how would you assess the level of enthusiasm on the part of staff for this proposal? MS. COOK: This was -- this was directed by the Board, so we prepared -- we took the direction from the Board and prepared this language as they had requested. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion or comments? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'd make a motion to follow suit of the last two committees that have denied this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. There's your motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion was to disapprove? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Deny, yeah. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the motion to deny, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. March 7, 2024 Page 102 of 103 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) And those -- so it passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, it's rejected. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's rejected unanimously. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, but the motion passes -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The motion passes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because the motion was to reject. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I think -- thank you very much, Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I think that takes us here to just some perfunctory items. ***Old business, I don't believe there is any old business. ***New business, is there any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Public comment? The room's empty. There can't be any of that. Therefore, without objection -- I'm sorry, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Just a reminder, at the beginning of this meeting, you guys canceled the meeting on the 21st. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We did. MR. BOSI: So don't show up two Thursdays from today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, yeah, okay. Good admonition. Thank you. Without objection, we're adjourned. ******* March 7, 2024 Page 103 of 103 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:01 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. ✔4/18/24