Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/19/2024December 19, 2024 Page 1 of 40 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 19, 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: Joe Schmitt, Chairman Chuck Schumacher, Vice Chairman Paul Shea, Secretary Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Charles "Chap" Colucci Randy Sparrazza ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Sean Sammon, Planning III Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I Oscar Alonso, Specialist III December 19, 2024 Page 2 of 40 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. SAMMON: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Good morning, all, and welcome to the December 19th, 2024, Collier County Planning Commission meeting. If I could ask all to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'd like to ask, Commissioner Shea, would you please take the roll. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: He is absent. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISISONER PETSCHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a quorum, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I would assume that the two commissioners are excused absences. So we'll note for the record. They -- so noted. Okay. Ray, any addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. Yes, we do have a change to the agenda. In order to accommodate Dan Summers for Items 9B and 9C, we'd like to move those to the first items under public hearings, and 9A becomes the last item. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So can I ask my colleagues to make a motion for that change. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So moved. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No opposed. It passes. December 19, 2024 Page 3 of 40 So for the record, Mr. Yovanovich and his team are first, two items first, and then we'll do the signal tower. All right. The next meeting is January 16th, 2025, a new year. Are there any projected Planning Commission absences -- absences for that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I will most likely miss that meeting. I may try and call in, but I'm on travel that day. So it's, unfortunately, another day I have to travel. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm not going to be here then. I'm not going to be here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So, Ray, any items they want to move, we'll gladly move them to the next meeting, if you -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We'll send out a request to see who's going to be in attendance. If we don't have a quorum -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, if there's any meetings [sic] -- anything that can move to the next meeting will be helpful. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Approval of minutes. We have minutes from November 21st, 2024. Any comments, changes, recommendations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. Ray, can we go with the BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On December 10th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment, the Growth Management Plan amendment, and the development order amendment for the Fiddler's Creek, and that was approved unanimously subject to some minor tweaks to the ordinance -- proposed ordinance. And on the summary agenda, the Board approved the Palm River residential PUD. That was, again, on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Ray, thanks. I'm going to make some comments on the Fiddler's Creek and -- for my colleagues that were on the Planning Commission at that time, Paul and Chuck and, I know, Randy. Of course, there was a three-day meeting. I had to recuse myself because of my past involvements with Fiddler's Creek, and -- but I did provide a document to the commissioners to kind of recap what I thought took place during the Planning Commission, because I certainly watched every minute of the meeting. Either I was here or was at home watching it. December 19, 2024 Page 4 of 40 But I did send a document, and I'll be glad to share that with the commissioners. And the document basically defined what a preserve is and what -- a preserve under the LDC, how preserves are identified, and then it also clarified the issue of what a protective covenant is under -- the criteria under the federal permitting process; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Section 7, consultation -- through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and their Section 7 consultation. So I had to -- I clarified that in detail at least from the standpoint so they would understand, because there was a lot of -- I believe during the Planning Commission, there was a lot of misinformation or misunderstanding between a preserve, protective covenant, and when a preserve is actually codified and placed into a protective covenant or a preserve. And that was noted on the record. Commissioner Hall and Commissioner LoCastro both mentioned that during the meeting and thought it was helpful. So I just wanted to make that -- make you all aware that I did send that, and for the record. And so I will share that. And, Ray, in order to ensure that we comply with the Sunshine Law, I'll probably send it to you and Mike, and you can send it to the commissioners. That way it won't be perceived as a violation of the Sunshine, that I'm directly communicating with the commissioners. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we'll be glad to forward it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So that was -- that -- but the -- I don't know -- Paul, I know you saw it, anybody else that watched it, and there was a discussion of the Planning Commission. I've been on the Planning Commission for a while, and I appreciate everybody's participation and what they -- how they go through the process in the Planning Commission. And in fact, Commissioner Saunders made the same statement and said our work is well respected, and we do help the commissioners vet some of these petitions. And in fact, for the new colleagues, I'm not sure if you're aware, but typically if it's a unanimous decision, if there's no objection, the item typically goes on the consent agenda, and that's the kind of work we do here. So it does, certainly in most cases, take a workload off their back. So I just wanted to make sure you-all understand from my perspective, my years both as a -- on the staff and on the Planning Commission, your work is well respected and appreciated. So I don't know if any of my other colleagues had heard those comments. I know -- Paul, do you want to say anything or no? He's not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And this isn't negative; I think they have different priorities. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think our mission is with the Growth Management Plan, and they have a whole bunch of other priorities that we don't have that can cause them to override it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Yeah, and that's understandable. We're an advisory board and advisory board only, and we maybe look at things through a different lens, and that's understandable. So with that, anything on -- nothing on the consent agenda. We'll move to the first public hearing, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: ***Yes. The first item is 9 -- was originally 9B on your December 19, 2024 Page 5 of 40 agenda, and it's the Tamiami Trail Greenway Road mixed-use, and the applicant is here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, yes. We have to do -- we have to swear in, if we could, and we have to have disclosures. Thank you. 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 SCHMITT: Disclosures, Amy. MS. LOCKHART: None. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich and with Bob Mulhere, both, on this project. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials and a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. COMMISISONER PETSCHER: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Visited the site, reviewed the materials, met with staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. So now we can proceed, Mr. Yovanovich. It's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant, the property owner, and the entire team. David Stevens and Rob Carroll are the applicant representatives, Mr. Mulhere is our professional planner, Mr. Trebilcock is our transportation consultant, and Mr. Chastain is also a planner on our team, and Mr. -- I don't know how to say his last name, but Jacob from Passarella & Associates is our environmental consultant. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a confirmation, when you read the description here, it's not the same as -- they're talking about 22 and 9 is still printed. Do I have an outdated agenda in terms of the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There was a change to the agenda. We need to put that on the record, the title. And, of course, it should be the Comp Plan amendment followed by the rezoning application. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the -- in this one he's got the lower number of affordable housing, and the updated one is the higher number. I'm just looking at what I was given. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will go through the details of what the actual petition is. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm just saying the published page is not consistent. MR. MULHERE: It was republished. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The agendas that are mailed to the Planning Commissioners, that was an older version, but what was advertised is the correct version. So we are consistent with advertising. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you for bringing that up. MR. YOVANOVICH: The property is outlined in yellow. It's 24.41 acres. December 19, 2024 Page 6 of 40 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Hold it, Rich. We've got -- we're all on the -- we're all on the "you can't see" screens, I guess. Okay. There it is. You've got to hit HDMI on the bottom. We'll let the -- we'll have to admonish Troy for not checking these. He's in the back room now. I'm not going to get a Christmas present now for discussing that. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I'm all for going back to flip charts and -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul, did you get it? Push the side. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There it is. Thank you. MR. TROY MILLER: Do you need me, Joe? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, we've got them. MR. YOVANOVICH: He forgot to turn on the monitors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No Santa Claus for me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we ready? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, thank you. Go ahead. It's all on our screens. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Outlined in yellow is the property that we're here to discuss today. It's 24.41 acres. And I almost feel like I think we found the formula for moving forward with apartment complexes that request additional density. The requirement under your Growth Management Plan amendment is that if we bring forward a petition that requests additional density, we're required to provide affordable housing or some other form of public benefit. What we're bringing forward to you today is both an affordable housing -- I mean, sorry -- Growth Management Plan amendment to increase the density. The property is currently -- or is located in the urban area. As you all are aware, the urban area has a base density of four units per acre with the ability to have increases. The county -- and I think they're going to talk today about scheduling a future amendment to the Land Development Code to change the affordable housing density matrix. But since that density matrix is a little outdated, you see companion Growth Management Plan amendments to increase the density above what the current Land Development Code allows because the current Land Development Code does not allow enough density for there to be economically viable projects that would include income-restricted housing. So this petition is consistent with the last several petitions that have come through. It's a request to increase -- to allow for 300 units and 64,000 square feet of commercial that Bob will take you through the master plan in greater detail. It includes the 30 percent income-restricted units. Fifteen percent of those units will be at the 100 percent and below, and 15 percent will be at the 80 percent and below, which has been the typical commitment for affordable housing with -- that the Board of County Commissioners has said they want to see when we bring forward projects that increase density. Bob will get into greater detail, but when you look at the location of this project, you will see that we have a 7-Eleven at the corner of Greenway and 41, and then we -- across the street we have Publix, and there are other attributes of this property that Bob will get into. It makes sense to have income-restricted housing as part of this proposal to serve what everybody acknowledges is a crisis in Collier County with regard to providing housing to allow teachers and nurses, firefighters, police officers to actually live here and not temporarily work here until they can find a job in -- where they live, Lee County, Cape Coral, or other areas. So this project addresses what the County December 19, 2024 Page 7 of 40 Commission has directed, to address affordable housing from a policy perspective. I'm going to let Bob get into the master plan and the greater details. Obviously, your staff is recommending approval. We have met with Dan Summers to address what he deems is necessary. And I know the Chairman asked Mr. Summers to be here to address how he came up with what our commitment is to address hurricane-related issues. I know that Elliot is here from Fiddler's Creek, and I spoke to the Chairman about this during our presentation. We have a transportation-related commitment that we will pay our fair share towards intersection improvements when we move forward, so that includes not only, you know, the intersection buildout itself but also the traffic signal. So we do have a -- we will be helping to offset some of the costs that Fiddler's Creek is incurring to put in the traffic signal at Greenway and 41. So that's in our -- that's already a commitment in our PUD. With that, I think we're -- Bob is ready to kind of take you through where we are and the details of our master plan, and we're available as a team to answer any of the questions you may have regarding the project. I know you've all read the materials, so we're going to try to do a short and brief -- And I just want to add one thing to the record. I'm sure Mr. Petscher doesn't remember, but we did have a brief conversation earlier this week regarding this specific project. I just want to make sure if anybody saw us talking briefly they don't accuse either one of us of not disclosing that conversation, so... COMMISISONER PETSCHER: Yeah, at an ale house passing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Very brief, but I did want to make sure. It was at lunch, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's like me running into Bob at Costco. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we had a conversation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We had a conversation. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Bowman. Rich, I think, pointed out most of the attributes. I just did want to briefly reiterate that immediately to the east is a 7-Eleven which got approved probably seven or eight years ago, maybe 10 years ago. And across the street is that Publix shopping center that's within the Fiddler's Creek PUD DRI. But also to the east, immediately adjacent to Greenway, there's a project that is coming forward for multifamily on this property right here, and then the Alonto RPUD, which was recently approved. Oh. Well, thank you. Now Rich is giving me tips on technology. MR. YOVANOVICH: It feels pretty good. MR. MULHERE: I did also want to point out -- because this is -- I want to reiterate that this is an urban designated piece of property. And, you know, I was -- when we first started looking at it, I was like, ah, this is in the urban area. Immediately east of here is the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, and you move over to the rural area. So this is different than those other properties in that it is in the urban area where, obviously, higher density and growth is expected. One of the other reasons we're doing a mixed-use -- I mean, excuse me, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is because this is a mixed-use project. There's really no easy way to get to a mixed-use project unless you're in an activity center or you already have some commercial zoning. So that's the other reason. December 19, 2024 Page 8 of 40 I also wanted to also point out -- where's that -- where's that -- oh, here -- that there is a transit stop that runs along Tamiami Trail, which is another good component or element. So as Rich said, it's a small-scale amendment to allow 300 multifamily dwelling units, which translates to 12.29 units per acre, and a maximum of 64,000 square feet of C-3 commercial uses adjacent to the -- and just west of the 7-Eleven. This is the county's Comprehensive Plan. It's a little funky because that big dark line designates the transition from urban to rural, but this property and the 7-Eleven are both within the urban area. So that black -- underneath that black line would be yellow if it wasn't there. That's just a thick designation of the transition. This is the PUD master plan. We have several access points out to Greenway for the residential component. The main -- the main entrance to the project, both the commercial and the residential, will be off Tamiami Trail, right here. We have also identified potential interconnections to the east, the 7-Eleven, and to the west future development there. We'll have to obviously negotiate that, if it's possible, with the 7-Eleven, but it would make sense. They're both commercial. So we hope to be able to do that. I wanted to just briefly discuss an additional deviation that was added somewhat late in the process. And Mike Sawyer is here if you need a confirmation from Mike. He sent us an e-mail on December 11th basically saying he had spoken with Trinity. This Cecil Road, which is right here, is really only the width of a driveway. There really is no room or feasibility for adding a sidewalk there. So Mike had suggested that we request a deviation for that requirement; otherwise, we'd be paying in lieu or constructing it. We did add that definition. I made sure that Jeremy notified Heidi and staff of that, because I didn't want to get in trouble, and so that's now there as Deviation No. 4. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But Cecil Road will stay, and that's an access -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. It's like -- yes, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- for the homes that are back there? MR. MULHERE: Now, I have an exhibit. If we get to it, I could show it to you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where's Lake 4? MR. MULHERE: Where's Lake 4? That's a good -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a test. MR. MULHERE: Why are you asking that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We go 1, 2, 3, 5. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I'm an engineer, and I don't know where 4 is. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's a good question. Do you have any idea? We just wanted to see if you were paying attention. So as Rich indicated, 90 units will be reserved for affordable housing. That's 30 percent of the overall: 45 at 100 percent or below, 45 at 80 percent or below. Our traffic -- Norm is the traffic consultant. We have a p.m. peak-hour trip generation with the commercial and the residential, combined, of 492 units, so that's a condition in the PUD, as the county uses that as an overall intensity limiter. Maximum number of trips, p.m. peak hour, which is the highest trip-generation period. We do have a staff recommendation of approval on both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning. December 19, 2024 Page 9 of 40 And this was the deviation I requested. Let me just show you that. That's an exhibit that shows you a little closer aerial perspective. It's only about 20 feet, and there's no room for a sidewalk there, nor does it make any sense, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But there is a buffer. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yes. So that brings us to any questions you may have, and anyone on the team can answer them. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I have a question. I'm going to start first. Bob, the entrance off of 41, is that a full opening, or is that just right-in, right-out? MR. MULHERE: It's -- it's a directional. Left-in, right-in, right-out. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So it will be a left-in -- there will -- so you will have to put a left-turn lane in? MR. MULHERE: There is one. I don't know if we have to extend it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here comes Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Hi. Norm Trebilcock. We prepared the traffic study for the project. Yeah, so there's an existing directional median opening that we're going to line up to. Right now there's an existing left turn in. Oh, thanks. Oh, gosh, Rich, you're good. All right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, he's well trained after 20 years or so. He's starting to get -- next will be “which direction?” MR. TREBILCOCK: So of course it's -- where all our text is, it's got it covered, but there is an existing directional median opening. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. TREBILCOCK: And so we would plan to use that and then make sure it's sized correctly for the project based on our queues and things like that. So there would be right-in, right-out, and left-in, and then the left-out is left out. There's no left-out. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then there will be an interconnect? Because there is a throat there going into -- MR. TREBILCOCK: 7-Eleven. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- 7-Eleven. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Yeah. We're making provisions for that to allow that, and we'll just need to coordinate with them on that as well. Yep, yes, sir. And then the same -- Bob had mentioned, to this future parcel over here, we would have an interconnect available to them as well so it would serve everybody in the area. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Good. Colleagues? Commissioners, anything? MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have some questions of Dan Summers, if I could, because in the staff report -- and I just want to get this for the record. It's not that I oppose it, but it's just a matter of making sure this does not appear to be an exaction where we're forcing the developer to give up something for the sake of trying to get the zoning approved. But in the staff report, staff cites -- let me go to the page. Sorry I wasn't on it. Go back. Dan, it's a planning factor for cots, and that is -- it was on -- it's on Page 5 of your staff report, Page 332 of 702 of our packet. And it says, approximately 40 percent total December 19, 2024 Page 10 of 40 occupancy. That's the planning factor for the requirement of estimating how many people will actually evacuate to a shelter. So I just want you to put on the record where that 44 percent comes from. MR. SUMMERS: Very good. For the record, Dan Summers, director of Emergency Management. Thank you. And again, historically, I appreciate the Planning Commission understanding the challenges we have associated with growth and evacuation sheltering. I think with all of us experiencing hurricane events, we all have a pretty good understanding of what those demands and challenges can be from a community, and our only resource is to use Collier schools. I do want to share just one component with you that I think is real important when we get into making public schools emergency shelters. First of all, we could not be as successful as we have been over recent years without the full support of Collier schools. This is the case statewide, that the county employees, as well as the school district employees, under an agreement process and a reimbursement process, operate these shelters. There are no more volunteers involved in sheltering and hasn't been for probably close to 20 years. So it is a county staff function. Secondly, we continue to see older and frail populations in these evacuation shelters that just simply cannot -- without deteriorating substantially, not get by with some basic electricity, some air movement, some basic -- basic lighting and those type of fundamental resources. The other component about this is that you-all need to know that as we -- pardon me. As we have dug into this over the years and asked school districts to provide more in the way of backup power or other capability building within these shelters, understand that the State Board of Education puts a cap on every student work station, and with today's construction costs, this is no way to build additional capability without breaking the law to exceed that student work station cap. So any of the additional school sheltering hardening or any additional generator support, air handling support has been something that, creatively, we have fallen back to the local level to try to find a way to fix that or in most cases receive supplemental legislative funding. But again, I can't say enough about the cooperation in the school district. The 40 percent factor has been historically a factor that goes all the way back to the Florida Division of Community Affairs, Florida Emergency Management, and has been the 40 percent planning factor of what you'd have for a population or for a community using shelter. Obviously, demographics, age groups change, storm intensity, storm track, recent -- there's a thousand different behavioral things that kind of go into that. But we have settled as an industry on the 40 percent planning factor. When we come to a developer who has a situation like this that is subject to storm surge inundation, we have only asked two things one time, either a contribution of the cots so that we can staff those -- staff those shelters or bring some resources. It's a one-time contribution. And then the towable generator, which we have the ability to manage, deploy, maintain. And I use supplemental grant money to connect that generator to temporary resources such as fans, spot coolers, area lighting. So it has worked out to be a very good cost-effective program. Instead of asking December 19, 2024 Page 11 of 40 for a million-dollar generator to be placed on site, we're asking for roughly a $48,000 generator and a couple thousand dollars’ worth of cots one time. That allows us the accommodation to help build some capability within our school districts' buildings for that one-time shelter cost. And as I mentioned in the report to you, Joe, you know, we've had as many as 23,000 people in shelters, and had we not had some of these supplies on hand -- not that sheltering is -- we call it a lifeboat, not the love boat. It's very, very tough conditions if you've never been in one, but it does provide a refuge. And so this one-time developer contribution -- we have had probably eight or nine of these, I think, that have come through over the last nine or 10 years, and it's been a tremendous success, even evaluated by Corps of Engineers as an excellent strategy for sheltering. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many generators do you have now? MR. SUMMERS: I have roughly 11. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And where are they located? MR. SUMMERS: They are located at our emergency services center. I have a logistics staff that tows them. So we bring them back to our headquarters. They are under a preventative maintenance program. We do load testing on those generators. About the end of July, they go to each school shelter, along with two or three landscape size trailers that have all of the disaster supplies and equipment in them so we can instantly deploy. And we have deployed for wildfires, severe weather, and certainly the hurricane events. So we are kind of Johnny-on-the-spot in terms of being able to provide some very basic resources for refuge. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, that's my -- what I wanted to get on the record, because I did not want this to appear that they were being -- there was arm-twisting, and I would like the applicant, at least for the record, to acknowledge that they concurred based on the request of emergency management for these generators. Because I was concerned about the cost to maintain. And, Dan, your explanation is -- it's certainly answered all my questions. Particularly, I was -- I did not want to see an applicant having to purchase a generator and having it sit in the yard, and then three years from now, it's -- you know, it's covered with leaves, and nobody's operating it. I'm -- as you well know my career, I know a lot about generators as a battalion commander, and as a company commander, even in the Army, I had a lot of generator power in my units, and it's a lot of maintenance and a lot of cost. MR. SUMMERS: It is, and we are able -- and that is very well supported by FEMA as well as reimbursement during the particular time. So -- and also understand that we build dual use into everything. For example, my generators are the same as Public Utilities. So if Public Utilities needs to power a lift station and they're short, mine are available. We rotate that through. So it is not isolated to a single mission. It is here to build for the county, but its primary mission is to go to the shelters. And let me also mention that we open the additional space in these schools because the school district has agreed to provide a port in every major large space area within the school. So we pull that generator up, run a large cord through the wall, and then from there go into temporary construction-type power distribution to serve the clients. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So there's no switch or a -- what do you want to call it? December 19, 2024 Page 12 of 40 MR. SUMMERS: No transfer switch. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Changeover transfer switch. MR. SUMMERS: Right. It's all a manual process. It's all very safe, and it has certainly kept the cost way down. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So it doesn't put a burden on the school -- MR. SUMMERS: No, no. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- to provide the transfer switch or -- MR. SUMMERS: No. We provide -- we train the staff to pull the cable, plug everything in, turn the switch on, and they've got a reliable 48 hours’ worth of power. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Dan, thanks -- MR. SUMMERS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- for answering my questions. I would like, for the record, the applicant agrees that these are -- this is a justified requirement for this type of a project. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how many years I've worked with you, Dan. How long have you been at the county? MR. SUMMERS: Twenty-some years. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Way too long. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I've been working with Dan on these issues for 20-something years. If you recall, in another hearing I recognized that he's the expert in this area, and we've never had an issue with what Dan recommends, and we are perfectly fine with paying this to the county for the increase in density, which the Comprehensive Plan and state statutes require us to do. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Thanks. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Colleagues, go ahead. Mike, you -- COMMISISONER PETSCHER: Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Oh, Chairman Schmitt, do you we have any other presentations or -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know we have public speakers. MS. LOCKHART: Staff. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have staff first, and then we'll -- it came up "Mike" on my screen here, but I'll recall it's Michelle. All right. Staff? MR. SAMMON: Good morning. Sean Sammon, Planner III in the Zoning division regarding -- Agenda Item 9C, the rezone petition for the East Trail Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development, was reviewed by staff, and staff believes this petition is consistent with the LDC as well as with the GMP. As mentioned, the applicant provided an added Deviation No. 4 after the staff report review was completed. The deviation was guided, reviewed, and approved by staff. Staff received no calls, and there has been no public opposition pertaining to this petition. Based on the analysis in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Commissioners. December 19, 2024 Page 13 of 40 That concludes staff presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm looking at uses. Item 88, videotape rentals, good luck if you want to put a videotape rental in there. I think it will -- you might as well put a flower shop or something, but I just -- that was one that I kind of thought was sort of obsolete. There was another one on here. But I have no problem with it. You can -- and I think that was the only one I saw. Stand by a minute as I go through. It's hard to see my highlights on this version. Say again. MR. MULHERE: We thought maybe Blockbuster -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Blockbuster, coming back. I mean, you know. I think that was it. Anybody -- nobody else is highlighting. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I was going to wait till after public -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Public speakers, please. How many -- do we have any registered public speakers? MR. ALONSO: Yeah, we only have one, and they're physically here. So the first and only speaker for this is going to be Elliot Miller. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I would recognize Elliot Miller -- Honorable Elliot Miller as the elected official of CDD2, Fiddler's Creek, and chair, by the way. MR. MILLER: Thank you very much, Joe. I'm here to address the cost of the traffic light. CDD2 was the initiator of the light. It was our application. We pursued it. We've entered into contracts for its construction and erection, and we are bearing all of the contractual obligations for the cost of it, which continues monthly to exceed the prior month, with no end in sight. On the other hand, CDD1, of which Mr. Schmitt is chairman, has agreed -- we have a contract -- that they're going to be sharing the cost with us. So both CDD1 and CDD2 have a serious interest in allocating the cost of the light among the appropriate and proper parties. The developer here is a proper party. Greenway is directly across from the Publix shopping center. That Publix property used to be CDD2 property, Fiddler's Creek, and ended up as part of Publix's property, and the developer, Halvorsen, has an arrangement with us with regard to the construction of its property and the traffic light. We need to have -- we and CDD1 both need to have a fair allocation of the cost of that light. And it’s clear to us, and I think to CDD1, too -- it's clear that the developer of this property, which is going to be -- end up a significant development residential, commercial, et cetera, has an equal share of benefit attributable to this light, and therefore, should make a material contribution to its cost. We, the two CDs, share a lot of the personnel that the developer has here. For example, Bowman is our engineer and CDD1's engineer as well, as the engineer for the developer here. My suggestion is -- and I address this to Rich really. My suggestion is that our engineer from Bowman, Terry Cole, speak with his partner here and go through the costs which have been established so far and which are likely to continue and then allocate a fair responsibility between the two CDDs on the one hand and the developer here on the other for the developer to share the cost with the CDDs. By the way, 7-Eleven is also going to be separately making a contribution as well. They have the same -- Bowman is their engineer as well. So my suggestion is that the developer representative from Bowman talk to our December 19, 2024 Page 14 of 40 engineer, Terry Cole, and get a detailed analysis of what the costs have been so far and what it is likely for the costs to continue and then come up with a proposal for the two CDDs for a fair and equitable contribution by the developer. Now, my point is that should happen now, not in three years when the property is developed and people start moving in because we, the two CDDs, have to make payments now when the property is completed, the light's up. So we think it's fair and equitable for the developer here to make its contribution at the present time. So what I would like to suggest is that the Bowman representative here meet with Terry Cole, get an analysis of the costs, and come up a proposal for both CDDs at our next meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you, Elliot. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can you explain what the hell he's talking about? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. CDD, Community Development District. MR. MILLER: I'm sorry. I thought it was -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: As you well know, we have -- in the State of Florida, Section 189 and 190 of the Florida code allows for special districts, and a CDD is a special district with elected officials who maintain -- basically have a budget to maintain the infrastructure, landscaping, and other community needs within the -- within the development, and almost -- I don't know how many CDDs exist now within Collier County. Probably -- MR. MILLER: More every day. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Probably at least 30 or more. Most of the major developments have Community Development Districts. What Elliot is saying -- and I have to make sure, for the record, I am no way pushing in any way, shape, or form. CDD1 is obligated to pay monies to CDD2. They're the contracting entity that is erecting -- has permitted and erecting the light. We are just obligated to pay our fair share -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where is the light? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- in accordance with the interlocal agreement. The light will be at Greenway Road, intersection of Greenway Road, right across the street from Greenway, and it was aligned that way. When Fiddler's Creek was designed, that was -- that's the interconnection right there. It leads into the back -- the gate going into what is called Sandpiper. So there will be -- that's going to be a major intersection. That's a six-lane road and a full opening. The light has probably been, Elliot, what, probably almost four years now? MR. MILLER: Years, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It was years ago contemplated. And, Norm, you're the traffic engineer, fortunately or unfortunately, for all of these. You were the traffic engineer, I believe. If -- Norm, if you could come up, because it's -- Norm's -- Norm, you were the -- you're the traffic engineer for the light. You're the traffic engineer as well; is that correct? MR. MILLER: Yes. He's on our payroll, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. And you're the traffic engineer for this development as well. So it's all in the same family in Bowman, which was Hole Montes, of course, the engineer who is doing the -- actually filed for the permits through the state. So it is fully warranted. There's been several rather severe accidents at that location, and December 19, 2024 Page 15 of 40 so the state has already approved it. It's just a matter of now getting the light erected, constructed. And I believe when 7-Eleven came in -- Bob, if I'm not mistaken, that was -- you were the petitioner on that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You and Jeff Wright. Maybe four years ago. I have the minutes. And there was a proportionate share requirement based on the impact. And on this it states as well that the proportionate share is based on the impact. MR. MILLER: Joe, Terry Cole is already going to be meeting with them with regard to the 7-Eleven. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. But I need to know, what is it -- what -- are we looking -- are you looking to ask to change the language in the proportionate share, or are you looking for the developer to come up with some kind of a solution? MR. MILLER: My request is that after Terry Cole sits down -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Terry Cole from Bowman. MR. MILLER: Bowman, yeah -- sits down with the gentleman from Bowman here and goes through the costs, that the developer come up with a proposal for now, for payment now -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. MILLER: -- based on a fair share of the allocation of the benefit of the light. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. MILLER: And let me just indicate, I'm -- first of all, let me say I'm sorry I didn't explain what a CDD was. We own -- we operate and manage the infrastructure, the roads, the traffic, the lights, the landscaping, et cetera, in the District, and there are two districts in Fiddler's Creek, CDD2 and CDD1. And we are both involved in the finances of this traffic light. So we have a very significant interest in having a fair share of those costs allocated to third parties who would benefit equally. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, for my colleagues, a CDD -- the only thing the county really maintains in any of these CDDs -- and we can go through all the developments that are Community Development Districts. Typically, the fire suppression and water and sewer infrastructure, but everything else in the -- in the community is the community's requirement, and it's not the county. MR. MILLER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. MILLER: But the community is -- we are so involved with the community that the pressure is on us all the time, as you know. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The CDDs, for those who don't know, are -- have the ability to tax. It's a yearly O&M tax that they can tax the residents for the operations and maintenance of the District. MR. MILLER: Good point, and that's why we're here, because we don't want our residents to be unfairly burdened financially by having to pay for the entire light that's going to benefit the developer equally to us. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When they go through the transportation, the fair share and all that, that will come out? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't know. I have to ask Norm that. So that's my question to Norm. What was the question? December 19, 2024 Page 16 of 40 COMMISSIONER SHEA: I thought his question was it will come out, but they should be paid now while the work's -- MR. MILLER: That's right. We are -- we have to pay now. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. MR. MILLER: As the light is built, we have to pay for its construction, we have to pay for its insertion, for the testing, for the land, for the nature of the light itself in the ground, so -- and ultimately, we're going to have that shared with CDD -- Community Development District No. 1. But both of us have an obligation to the residents of Fiddler's Creek, and both of us are equally fairly compensated by the developer here who's going to develop -- who's going to benefit from this traffic light as much as we will. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Elliot, thank you. MR. MILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any questions of Mr. Miller? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I do. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, sorry. You're on here. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Mr. Miller, how many units are in CDD2? MR. MILLER: At this -- at this point it's in excess of 2,000. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Excess of 2,000. And then CDD1? Because I would expect you would just divide the cost amongst the number of units. MR. MILLER: We have an agreement with the two CDDs. CDD1 initiated the traffic light on 951 years ago, and we agreed to split the cost of that traffic light with CDD1 if they would agree to split the cost of the light on CDD -- on 41 when we developed that. So it goes back a long time. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What was -- what was the estimated cost? I know costs are growing, but what was the initial estimated cost for that traffic light? MR. MILLER: Initially it was much lower than it's turned out to be. I think it was initially guesstimated around three-quarters of a million dollars. I think now we're coming close to two million. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It was 750,000, Norm, if I'm correct, and we’re somewhere approaching almost two million. MR. MILLER: Two million. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, you want to make a statement? Thank you, Mr. Miller. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we done with public comment? I don't want to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Are there any other public speakers? MR. YOVANOVICH: People stood up, so I wasn't sure if they were here to talk about -- MR. ALONSO: No other public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. No other public speakers. Then we'll close the public hearing. Say again. MS. ABBOTT: I was wondering if I could ask a question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Have you been sworn in? December 19, 2024 Page 17 of 40 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Have you been sworn in? MS. ABBOTT: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Please come up, and if you come to the podium. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Use the right side. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Either one. 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? MS. ABBOTT: Yes. So my name is Laura Abbott, and I own the only other property on Cecil Road, and I purchased that to do a little horse farm. And I'm wondering if Cecil Road is going to be used at all for this project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. As far as what I just heard for the record, it's -- MS. ABBOTT: That was -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- not part of the development at all. MS. ABBOTT: Okay. That was my understanding as well. So I'm wondering -- and I don't know whether you would have the answer to that, if I could fence that property in, the road, so that I don't have people coming and going up and down the road. Is that something you could answer the question? Over the road? Across the -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: You have to go through permitting. MS. ABBOTT: Well, I'm dealing with them now, so -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it's zoned -- MS. ABBOTT: Agriculture. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- agriculture. MS. ABBOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You would technically -- ag., even if they get a permit, if they're putting a fence on ag property -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Who owns the road? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Who owns the road? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That would be the question, if it's legal access or not. If it's an access easement to some other place, that would have to be investigated; Permitting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So you'd have to probably go through -- you'd have to go through Permitting. You'd have to coordinate with the county. MS. ABBOTT: So -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But is there going to be a wall -- Bob, is there a wall back there or any type of berm, or is this -- MS. ABBOTT: Just natural, right? Natural. MR. MULHERE: Natural buffer. MS. ABBOTT: So I'm the only person that lives on that road, and I do share that road with my neighbor who has the property on Greenway. Yeah, on Greenway -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. ABBOTT: -- right before mine. So he wouldn't care. He doesn't really need to use it. MR. MULHERE: That may be a little bit better exhibit. MS. ABBOTT: So I don't see any need for anyone else to use the road, and I just December 19, 2024 Page 18 of 40 would like to make my horses safe from that 41 and across that road and be able to, you know -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I can't answer that question. We'd have to -- the county would have to investigate. MS. ABBOTT: But this project needs no -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If you put a fence on the north side of Cecil Road, which is -- you're fencing your property. MS. ABBOTT: Right, my boundary, and then -- or at the end there where that house is -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I don't see that -- MS. ABBOTT: Any other person that needed to get down that road would be whoever owned that house when I bought it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it has to provide access, but it looks like right now that road will end right at the boundary of this development, so -- MS. ABBOTT: That was my understanding as well. So I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I'll ask the applicant to clarify. Thank you. MS. ABBOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to know when is this light going to be installed? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't control it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Elliot, please, with the microphone, if you could. MR. MILLER: Oh, sorry. Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: When was it -- it was hoping to be -- the word -- operative word was "hope" -- February or March, but now they've encountered a fiber-optic cable that has to be relocated for another $50,000 or thereabouts. MR. MILLER: The initial expectation was in January -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. MR. MILLER: -- this coming month -- next month. But as Joe just indicated, there's now this special issue about the cable that has to be cured, and that's going to put it off for another three, four months. So it will be early next year, hopefully March or April. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But all the materials have been purchased? MR. MILLER: Yes. Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Everything -- MR. MILLER: And being constructed. The components have been bought, and the light is being constructed. The issue is installing it now because of this -- the issue that just arose that Joe just mentioned. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Rich -- now that does close the public hearing. Anybody else wishes to speak that did not register? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Rich, it's yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we have to -- first of all, in response to giving a check now, we're not going to give a check now. We have to -- we have to take a step December 19, 2024 Page 19 of 40 back. Fiddler's Creek, as you all are aware, is a 6,000-unit DRI. That's what it will be at ultimate buildout. The need for the traffic signal at both of those locations, at 951 and at Tamiami Trail, were triggered by Fiddler's Creek. We don't have any development on our property, so clearly, we're not the cause for the need for that traffic signal. We do not share equally in the benefit of that traffic signal. We will have far less traffic on Greenway going through that intersection than the residents of Fiddler's Creek and the general public traveling back and forth on Tamiami Trail. There will be other developments along Greenway that you will be seeing in the near future that are rezones that are occurring that will have traffic on Greenway. We have committed to paying our proportionate share. We will pay that when we have actual traffic impacts. If I were the CDD, I'd be looking at this as found money that they didn't originally have coming their way for constructing the traffic signal. And we're happy to pay a proportionate share. Typically, the way that's done is you have traffic analysis, and you look at how many trips we're going to put on there, the capacity at that intersection, and then we would stroke a check for that when the signal's actually in place at the time we have actual impact. I think that's fair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. The language is clear. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's clear. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It basically says at first -- MR. YOVANOVICH: CO. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- CO. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's fair. I think that's when we should have to pay money towards that. And I understand that costs go up. I understand that there are unforeseen circumstances. But had this been installed when you-all originally -- and when I say "you-all," meaning the two CDDs -- you'd have paid 100 percent. You would have had no money coming back to you. So at this point you're at least going to get something. You're going to get something back based upon a fair proportionate share formula, and you're going to get that at the time that we actually develop the property and actually have a benefit from the signal. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. For the record, then, if I could ask Norm -- and, Elliot, I know you want to make a statement, but we closed the public hearing. But I -- since -- since this does involve -- specifically, I will ask you again if you could come to the microphone, please, because it's -- I just want to make sure it's clear. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not going to negotiate a dollar amount today. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I understand. MR. MILLER: Thank you, Joe. Just let me say this to Rich. I understand your point. What I'm suggesting is that if you do make a payment now, it be discounted. So I'm not -- I'm suggesting that you can get a fair and equitable discount by paying it now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that -- we could talk about a fair and equitable discount. MR. MILLER: That's what I'm saying. I understand your point, and it's -- it was contemplated. I'm saying, if you come forward with an arrangement that gives you a fair and equitable discount for an early payment, that will be taken into account. December 19, 2024 Page 20 of 40 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I -- for the record, then, I leave -- between CDD2 and the developer, you can negotiate off-line. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The zoning is clear. They're going to pay their proportionate fair share. If the -- if the developer and the CDD come to a separate agreement, it's not part of the zoning. Elliot, you'll have to work that off-line. MR. MILLER: Sure. I just wanted to respond to Rich's point. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that's not findings its way into a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, it's not in a recommendation. That is -- that's off-line. And I would only ask for -- Norm, if you could put on the record, though -- because that payment is actually made to the county, and the county then reimburses the permittee; is that correct? And, Norm, you're the engineer? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, but he's not -- he's not the lawyer on the deal. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know it, but I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's between -- I don't know how the county is entering into -- whether even the county has an agreement with the CDD to talk about -- we're going to pay. How the money gets to the CDD, we don't know. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I just ask Norm, for the record, that he understands that it is a proportionate share. He's the -- he's the -- he did the traffic study for your application, did he not? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So if you could just explain for the record the proportionate share for my other colleagues to understand. MR. MILLER: He's also our traffic engineer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I understand. Thank you, Elliot. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. So we'll prepare these fair share analyses for signals, because the signal warrants -- it's not just, like, appear, like, units this is [sic]. It deals with turning movements. Typically, your left turning movement is causing the need for the signal, and then on the minor street, the through movements cause that need. You know, the through movements on the main line road do not. So what we normally will do is do a proportionate share, like you're talking about, Joe. And where the county's involved is their traffic folks, you know, independently will review it and just make sure that it is a fair share analysis on behalf of that study that's being done. And actually, just for the record, on the signal warrant for Fiddler's Creek, the traffic analysis that was done for the warrants and as such, it was Jim Banks. It wasn't myself. MR. MILLER: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I thought it was -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. We prepared the traffic plans and stuff like that, December 19, 2024 Page 21 of 40 working together and everything like that. But it's fine to do that analysis and, you know, the proportionate share, and that's very objective. It's a numbers, specifically, and staff would review it to make sure objectively it makes sense for this very, you know, finite, like, location and as such. So -- and then, you know, work with Terry on reviewing it as well to make -- objectively that it makes sense. So it's a normal course of things, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you and Jim both know what's going on? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Norm, how many -- how many vehicles would you estimate are going to use Greenway? MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as from our -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: From your project, how many cars do you estimate are going to use Greenway? I know the main entrance will be off of 41. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: There's two -- there's two ingresses and egresses onto Greenway from this project. How many vehicles would you estimate are going to use those access points? MR. TREBILCOCK: I would have to -- I would have to look at the numbers here and calculate that and get back to you on that, okay? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Because that -- again, that -- what happens is we look at that very specifically at the time of site development where we'll look at the percentages of traffic using it. Right now, as a planning study, really, what we looked at is the overall project on the main road network, and we didn't get into the intersection itself. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That has nothing to do with the light, Rich. Rich looks like he's about to hop off that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm good. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm just worried about that road, because like you just said, there's more projects coming up on that road itself. Obviously, the owners that bought on Greenway initially X amount of years ago never imagined -- I mean, I can see from the map here, you've got -- Naples Reserve is plugged into that road as well, which Rich could argue that's their fair share to get on that, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- just so -- there are significant improvements being planned to that intersection for Greenway on the north side because of not only -- there's will hopefully be -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: There's a farm down there. There's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What will ultimately be the first Live Local project approved where I just put the arrow. Right, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then there is another project up here that's winding its way through the process that also has income-restricted housing in it. All of that is being considered by your Transportation staff to how do we -- how do we improve -- whoops, wrong way, sorry -- the intersection at Greenway. So there will be improvements at that intersection. That will -- maybe we should December 19, 2024 Page 22 of 40 go to the CDD and say, "We'd like you to contribute your fair share towards those improvements as well." We're not doing that. There are -- just so you're aware, Mr. Schumacher, that all of that is being factored in. So your legitimate concerns about what's the impact on Greenway are being -- are being addressed as all of these projects as a whole are winding their way through this process. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I know that road itself is not very wide. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but where the issue is is really at the intersection, and that all is being addressed with additional lefts, additional rights -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- both within 41 and on Greenway. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Elliot, I don't have any questions. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So based on -- Mr. Yovanovich, we understand. And it doesn't change your petition in anyway way nor are we adding any stipulation. I guess, for the record, it is going to be a future payment made at some time to the Community Development District, who is the applicant and the permittee. MR. YOVANOVICH: Our commitment -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is with Collier County. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well -- to be the Collier County, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a commitment to Collier County to pay our fair share -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of the intersection improvements, and within that, it said, "Traffic signal." We will pay our fair share to Collier County. We don't have any contractual obligation nor does our commitment say we're stroking a check to anybody other than Collier County. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Mike Sawyer, can I ask you to come up, then, just to clarify. Just for the record, state your name, please. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And you and I discussed this by e-mail, and in fact, when I chatted with the staff. This is a commitment that you will follow, and eventually you are the recipient of any -- the analysis is done, and you are then -- you, the county, are the recipient, between you and the Transportation Department, and then you will evaluate how much monies will actually go to the entity that permitted -- was the permit applicant for this traffic light; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: Yeah. Whenever they come in for their first SDP plat, however it comes in -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- you know, when we get that trigger, those plans are reviewed by our operational people as well as the transportation reviewers and Development Services. So we work in concert with each other when those come in, and we'll look at that, we'll look at the evaluation, and we'll make a judgment based on the numbers. December 19, 2024 Page 23 of 40 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for my colleagues? Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Not on this matter. Just for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Of the petitioner. Yeah, go ahead, please. MR. SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. I just wanted to make two points. First off, I was glad to see that the car wash that you originally wanted to place on this commercial area was eliminated based on the neighbor's concern, so I was really happy to see that. And then I have a big-picture ask of you. You ready? So -- and I talked to Mike Bosi about this before I put this together. But because this area is practically unchartered territory and we're seeing petitions come before us and we're going to start seeing a lot of development in this area, I think it's important that we set, early on, a desirable design pattern on where we want building placement and orientation to help create an environment with current urban planning elements instead of falling into old planning trends. For instance, before, in the past, when you would do commercial projects, you would put parking in the front and then the building in the back. But today's urban designs try to create more walkable and appealing spaces by bringing buildings up and softening and improving the overall site design. This is -- an example of this is on Fifth Avenue in the City of Naples. Before, years ago, you would see the parking in the front and the buildings in the back, but through their years of redevelopment, in trying to create that walkable, impressionable space, they put the parking in the back and then brought the buildings up front to the road. And interestingly enough, this trend is now moving down 41. So right now the development standard for an MPUD is a minimum front setback of 20 feet. Would you be willing to agree to a maximum setback of 50 feet to help initiate this desired building placement and orientation to set the pattern for future developments that are coming right around the corner? And I worked with Mike Bosi in kind of figuring out what would be needed in order to create this -- the current urban planning elements that we want to see here. And, again, it's just a maximum setback of 50 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't agree to that on the fly. We haven't laid this out. I understand your ask, and I understand your desire. I don't -- in Rich Yovanovich's humble opinion, as a lawyer who's represented projects at this point and I understand planning, I don't think that this is the same scenario as a typical urban project like Fifth Avenue. This is a six-lane highway. We're talking 64,000 square feet. I don't know how it would lay out if I can't have a building that is more than 50 feet from U.S. 41. I don't think it would work. To require -- I think you'd probably end up with something you don't want, which would be one big, long building for us to figure out how to get all that square footage in there. I don't know if it fits for the uses we're proposing to happen. I can't agree to that. My client -- I've already looked back, and they've told me, "No, we can't agree to that requirement." I don't think it fits. I don't think this is -- this is not an urban, walkable -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: It will be, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: It won't be. December 19, 2024 Page 24 of 40 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: We can make it that way. You're already seeing the trend happening on 41 anyway, past the city. I just made that as an example -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I understand -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- of what we're starting to see. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but it's not happening. I mean, it's a great desire, but it's different on Fifth Avenue than being on 41. I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Again, the trend is moving past -- onto 41 past the city. On Goodlette. You're seeing it everywhere. Again, to just soften what we're seeing on the roads. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you're going to have nice landscape buffers along 41. Those are required in our code. And to now try to make this where you have the building lines that you would find in a more -- I'll call it a more dense area, downtown Naples to out here in a -- in a less dense urban area, we cannot -- we can't agree to that commitment. In fairness to us, I'm hearing about this for the very first time at 10:10 when I've got a petition in front of you. I can't -- we can't react that quickly, and I don't think it's apples to apples. So I'd love to give it to you, but I can't. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: All right. Well, is Mike Bosi on the line? I just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know he was thinking about participating by Zoom. I don't know if he's on right now. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So I just met with him yesterday and shared with him my desire because, you know, as the Planning Commission, we're looking at what are counties going to be looking like in the future, and I think it's just so important that we make sure we get it right now so that we're proud of it in the future. And this is just something that -- I just am all about how to plan properly for these up-and-coming areas. And again, this is -- this is going to be hot, and you are one of the first properties here where we could really make a difference. So of that's my ask. I understand that you're not prepared to take that now, but maybe just consider that as you move forward with your design. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I mean, we could look at anything as we're doing our design, but to change our PUD to require it, we cannot -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: What's the maximum right now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Maximum what? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: The maximum setback. MR. YOVANOVICH: There is no maximum. In Collier County, we do minimums. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- you know, because a lot of people don't want buildings right on top of the road. So we've -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Well -- but a lot of people don't -- I mean, it's not that attractive when you see all parking up front. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, this is -- this is only, what, seven acres. MR. MULHERE: Six acres and change. MR. YOVANOVICH: Six acres and changes. I mean, it's not a big parcel. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: It's just an ask, you know. December 19, 2024 Page 25 of 40 MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Just bring the building up, make less parking, put it in the side. MR. MULHERE: So there's a couple of things I -- Bob Mulhere, for the record. We're providing the main access through the commercial development which now separates us into two parcels. That's going to go all the way to the residential component. So we have basically two parcels; one west, one east. It really complicates the design. You know, the county has spent several years looking at a Tamiami Trail/U.S. 41/East Naples Overlay. Where is it? That's the process to incorporate significant changes here so landowners can have an opportunity to determine what those impacts are, not on the fly with one petition coming before you that we've been in the works for some time. I'm not sure where that project is. It doesn't go that far east. But there is an opportunity to do planning, and it starts with a comprehensive, public advertised, overall plan that would incorporate these ideals, these planning ideals, and everyone would have an opportunity to have some weigh -- some opportunity to weigh in on things. I don't -- I don't think this very small, separated, segregated commercial parcel can meet those substantial design elements. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: You can -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll make a comment because -- Michelle, I understand your request. The problem is is from intersection of 41 and Collier Boulevard, there's already a frontage road. The drugstore, the Tractor Supply, or whatever it is, all those have a frontage road almost all the way down. This is going to have a frontage road and an interconnect. So it -- it would be -- I think, it's -- from a traffic perspective, it's going to be difficult because it would be far better off to keep some of this traffic off of Tamiami Trail if they're going to be doing interconnects. So there's going to be -- again, there's an interconnect with the 7-Eleven, and I suspect that there will be some kind of a frontage road, meaning for traffic to go across and then eventually go into the main entrance here. So that -- you know, we don't get into planning design even though we're the Planning Commission. Bob is right, there's been a U.S. 41 study ongoing, various versions, for almost 20 years, and various aspects, and I think they're in the final throes of another one they're going to complete. Is that right, Ray? The U.S. 41 study, they were looking at the community character and -- I don't know -- I don't know where that's at. MR. BELLOWS: I can give you an update later, but... COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I think it's on hold. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's on hold again. They were discussing -- it had to do primarily -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: There was that civil action that came in after Ian where the state came down and said you can't do any large-scale community development on the county side until 2026. So we pretty much had a hard stop until that expires. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But that was focused temporarily on -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Down to 951. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 951 and trying to eliminate the proliferation of storage December 19, 2024 Page 26 of 40 facilities and car washes, which is really what was happening on 41. The problem is most of 41 lacks the depth of the -- in the -- if you're going north from Collier Boulevard, there's not sufficient depth in a lot of the parcels. That's why -- so you might see some of the units a little bit closer to the road. But out here, especially from the intersection heading south, there's -- a lot of them now have the little frontage road that you can connect. But anyways -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But these overlay plans kind of call for these kinds of things. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And so, like, trying to think ahead, how can we best create these spaces? And I'm not suggesting we require it. It was only an ask, and so -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, Rich noted it as an ask for the record, so I think that's okay. Any other comments? I don't see any commissioners lighting up their -- we have no public speakers. We closed the public hearing. That closes your rebuttal, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do we have any motions from the floor? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'd make a motion to approve as presented. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that for both petitions? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: For both petitions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's for the -- both the comp -- small-scale Comp Plan amendment and the PUDZ? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. COMMISISONER PETSCHER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I hope everybody has a happy holiday and gets some good rest. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I'll let you and -- I'll let you and Elliot Miller discuss any future negotiations. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I've known Elliot a while, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, you attorneys, you get together. You talk talk that we don't even know what you're talking about, so... COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And then don't forget to save that bill for the rest of the communities on that road, Rich. December 19, 2024 Page 27 of 40 MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Save the bill for the rest of those communities that are being built on that road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Save the bill? I will. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, that same language will probably go in the rest of them as well. It will be in future payments, because the costs have escalated amazingly what it costs for one of those lights. ***All right. That moves us to the next petition. That's the FPL Summit substation communications tower, PL20230004408. And I'm going to ask, are there any disclosures? Amy. MS. LOCKHART: None. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff materials only for me, and I did discuss with staff the denial for the fence. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials and a drive-by of the property. COMMISISONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and drive-by. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Visited the site, reviewed the materials, and met with staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Could I ask the petitioner, are we going to take our -- anybody wishing to speak, or the petitioner, please take our oath, please. 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.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are we going to need a break? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, why don't we -- THE COURT REPORTER: Is it going to be quick? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't know. There's going to be some questions. There will be some questions. I would recommend we take a break before we actually get into the petition, if we could. It's getting close to 10:30. Normally that's our break. If you don't mind, we'll take a 10-minute break. We'll adjourn at 10:30. MR .JOHNSON: No problem. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 10:19 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) MR. SAMMON: It's 10:30, Mr. Chairman. You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. And thank you for indulging and allowing us to take the break. So if you could state your name, please, and start with the petition. MR. JOHNSTON: Great. Thank you. My name is James Johnston with Shutts & Bowen, 300 South Orange Avenue in Orlando, on behalf of Verizon. And I have with me Bill Compton who is with Verizon. He's a Verizon RF engineer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Bill's been here before, though, haven't you? Certainly, yes. Welcome back. MR. COMPTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We didn't give you a hard time, though. MR. COMPTON: No, not yet. December 19, 2024 Page 28 of 40 MR. JOHNSTON: And Happy Holidays and, again, appreciate everyone being out here so close to the holidays. So this request is for a conditional use to permit the installation of a 150-foot-tall monopole communication tower on property with Estate future land use and zoning. The tower will be owned by Florida Power & Light with Verizon as the anchor licensee, meaning the top antennas on the tower. It's located at 191 Weber Boulevard North, again, on an FPL-owned electric substation property. That use will remain. And just before we get too far into this, I want to let you know we are fine with the staff recommendation and conditions, including their recommendation of denial of the fencing. So I think we'll eliminate that as an issue. So our only deviation will be the separation deviation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, that makes it certainly far more acceptable because that was going to be the -- was going to be a requirement anyway. So you now have accepted that as the requirement as per the code? MR. JOHNSTON: Per the code. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. Then, just really quickly, there is a picture showing -- with the 191 Weber Boulevard shown there abutting -- that property butts up against Collier Boulevard and Weber Boulevard. This is a closeup of the electric substation site, as you can see, accessed off Weber Boulevard. There is the -- from Weber Boulevard -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Weber. MR. JOHNSTON: Weber, sorry. Thank you for not letting me get too far into that -- but from Weber Boulevard with the fencing and gate there for the access point. And so the -- what is proposed is a 150-foot-tall monopole communication tower. Monopole design generally is considered to have reduced visual impacts from other tower types like a guyed or a lattice tower type. This location abuts the existing electric substation. As indicated, access from Weber Boulevard. It's designed to accommodate not only Verizon antennas on the top but two additional providers to prevent communication tower proliferation in the area. It's a code requirement for coalition. The setbacks from the property lines are 84 feet to the north, 239 feet to the south, 445 feet to the east, and 449 feet to the west. Again, we are requesting a deviation from the separation requirement to the north, which is, under the code, 100 percent of tower height, which would be -- as a 150-foot-tall tower, it would be 150 feet. Although I will note the code allows a 50 percent reduction in that if it's an alternative tower design, like a tree camouflage design, but a tree design is not possible on this site because it's next to an electric substation site. And there are times when the branches on those trees can come off, and so that would be problematic for the substation. And this tower, again, is being owned and will be constructed by FPL and designed to meet their transmission pole requirements, including wind loading. This is a -- just showing kind of an overlay on the site where the site will be. As you can see, it utilized the existing driveway and paved area to access it, and so that paved area will also serve to meet the parking and turnaround requirements. And the -- we ended up on this location on the FPL property based on certain property constraints such as existing stormwater ponds, electric transmission lines leaving the substation, separation December 19, 2024 Page 29 of 40 requirements from the substation control house that are FPL requirements, septic field, underground conduit, and conservation easements that are already in existence on the property. As mentioned, this requires a reduced separation from the property to the north, but we would note there's an existing mature tree canopy on the property that already -- that has been there and is, again, mature and provides necessary buffering and screening from the surrounding property areas. And this, again, is something we submitted showing the -- you know, kind of problematic areas on the property which are how we ended up with the proposed location on the site in working, you know, with FPL. And, again, we would note that this provides direct access from the existing driveway and paved area. And this is just a closeup of the actual ground equipment and where the tower location will be. And as noted, you know, this -- the difference from what is shown on here is there will be fencing, you know, around that -- around the communication tower as is shown around the ground equipment on this drawing. And this is an elevation of the tower. You know, a typical monopole tower with the Verizon antennas on the top, and then, again, two other potential collocation locations below that. And Verizon has an existing coverage and capacity gap in this area. There have been significant customer complaints. And in fact, the Estates area of the county are one of Verizon's top 10 areas with covering and capacity needs in the state. There are some real problems out there and need for this tower. In fact, when we had our community meeting in April, we had a hard time. Part of it was being done virtually, and we had a very hard time finding a signal in the area where we were having the community meeting in order to hook up and do the -- do the virtual portion of the meeting. We had to move the computer back to the office where the router -- close to the router because we couldn't get a signal otherwise in the location. The 150-foot tower height is necessary by Verizon to get the antennas at a height that will help to resolve their coverage and capacity issues. We note that the closest towers range in height in this area from 125 feet to 190 feet. So again, what we're proposing is not anything abnormal from what's in this area, and the height is permitted by code. Closest existing tower is 1.8 miles away. There are no existing towers or structures in our search ring where we have this need for this tower on which Verizon antennas can be located. And we think the site will significantly enhance the coverage and capacity and result in major network performance improvements for the area. And these are the RF maps that should be in your package. This is the before, and you see the black dot in the middle along Collier Boulevard. That's where the tower is proposed to be located. The red indicates unreliable coverage with the green reliable coverage. With the tower constructed, you can see it obviously improves along Collier Boulevard as well as the neighbor -- surroundings residential neighborhoods in the area. And, again, this is a map showing the other existing towers in the area and why there's a need in this specific -- in this specific location for a new tower. And so I think the communication tower benefits will obviously improve coverage December 19, 2024 Page 30 of 40 and capacity in the area from a public health and safety aspect. I think most people know people rely on their -- you know, on their cell phones and wireless devices. Over 80 percent of all 911 calls are now made from wireless devices, so having quality coverage is important. This will help improve e911 Phase 2, which is how they identify where 911 wireless calls are coming from. And, again, we think this is providing a service that has become essential to the public, certainly, over the last 20 years, and it's important to have this kind of coverage and capacity in the area. You know, the need for this is created by the residential, you know, that has been developed in the area and the uses they have. And so we're trying to find -- and you can't locate something five miles away to then serve that area. You have to -- you have to have your tower and your antennas in the area that need to be served. So we've tried to locate the most appropriate site to serve the surrounding residential community, and we think we have found that on an existing electric substation site. This will be an unmanned facility, so no impacts -- real impact to public services, including roads. Typically, we've had appraisers studies shown that -- or conducted that show proximity to communication towers don't impact property values. Again, we think, based on people's reliance on wireless communications now, having good quality and coverage is actually an asset. And so in conclusion, you know, this tower at the height and location is required by Verizon, you know, to fill its significant coverage and capacity gap. We think it's important for public safety and welfare. We think it's located on an appropriate property to provide the services to the surrounding neighborhood and that we think the tower at this location is what was intended by the recent code changes that were done to -- I think done by the county and adopted in February to help make it -- I wouldn't say easier for towers, but certainly to streamline the process in moving forward. And so we're taking advantage of those code -- new code requirements here. And again, we're -- staff has recommended approval subject to certain conditions which we're in agreement with. And so we would just ask for a recommendation of approval. And I'm here to answer any questions. And then also I think there are some people in the public, but we'd just like an opportunity to come back and address any comments. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Oh, I don't see anybody in line. I'm going to ask the first question. MR. JOHNSTON: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: This is a monopole. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Typically the monopoles we've seen in the past have a structured or designed breakpoint so that when it fell, of course, you reduce the fall perimeter requirement. This is a single pole, monopole, and it will be designed for a Category 5 hurricane? MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So there's no fracture point. This is designed to withstand a Category 5? MR. JOHNSTON: It's designed by FPL like their transmission towers, and they December 19, 2024 Page 31 of 40 do not allow breakpoints on towers, especially up against substations like that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I just want to make sure that's for the record. Any colleagues have anything? Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll wait till after. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, with that, then, staff? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning manager for Zoning Services. I'm filling in for Laura DeJohn. The applicant did a great job of outlining this request. And in your staff report, there's conditional-use findings. Staff has found this request consistent with the conditional-use criteria. We did have an issue with one of their deviations, but they withdrew that deviation in regard to screening around the tower. The other deviation staff is supporting due to the unusual site constraints they have to deal with being so close to the FPL substation. And we have one condition of approval basically trying to prevent a nonconforming situation if there's a future lot split. So we do not want a future lot split. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Okay. Thank you. That opens -- do we have any registered speakers? MR. ALONSO: We have one in person and two virtual. So starting with Jill Snyder. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Either microphone is fine. Were you sworn in? MS. SNYDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. SNYDER: Good morning. My name is Jill Snyder, and I live at 3430 Third Avenue Northwest. I'm hopefully going to be in that green area because I'm currently in that red area that was shown on the map. First of all, I'd like to thank Florida Power & Light and Verizon for coming up with what I think is a very creative solution to cell coverage in the Estates. I just -- I just want to thank them. And I think this might be the first on an FPL site? But I think it's -- I think it's a very creative solution for everybody involved. I did file a complaint with the FCC in 2022 for lack of cell coverage in this area, along with hundreds of -- maybe thousands of others. So as was stated earlier, it's certainly a known problem within the state of Florida. If I can make a cell call from my home -- which about 50 percent of the time it might connect, and if it connects, it doesn't stay connected, so it's very frustrating. It's very difficult to work from home, which many of us do in that area. I realize you can do WiFi calling, which we try to use as well, but Internet isn't good in that area either, so WiFi calling is problematic, and WiFi calling can impact your 911 calls if you're trying to call for assistance as well. Most important to me, and it was stated a few minutes ago, is the impact for calling 911, and as he stated, 80 percent of the calls to 911 are cellular. I have personally had an impact where it impacted our family because dialing 911 isn't always possible from where we're at. So it is definitely a public safety and welfare issue. And I just -- I can't believe it's 2024, almost 2025, I live in Naples, Florida, and I can't call 911. There's just -- there's just something wrong here. So I really appreciate December 19, 2024 Page 32 of 40 the efforts that are being taken to address this issue. I'm fortunate I'm in the area that can be positively impacted by this. I support this request. And I hope that you will, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. SNYDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next public speaker, please. MR. ALONSO: Yeah. We have another in-person speaker, followed by two virtual speakers. Cary Mitchell. MS. MITCHELL: Hi. I'm Cary Mitchell. I live on Third Avenue Southwest. And I've been studying this 5G extensively and finding out about all the health impacts it has on people, children. It has all types of cancer, depression, behavior issues, sleeping problems, brain fog. It has pregnancy issues, DNA changing in your brain, and it's, like -- I keep seeing more and more towers going up, and it's like there's -- at Vineyards Elementary are two giant towers, and there's children in that school, and it's all electromagnetic pollution that is getting to those children every day. And it would be interesting to do a study of how many kids have cancer from that or how many kids have autism or how many kids are being affected in their brains. And it's just -- I think the public needs to be more aware of these issues. And the towers are usually recommended to be 200 meters away from homes, and they're asking 84 feet. It's like -- I'm just here to object to this. They haven't done any study since 1996 as far as federal guidelines go, and that was probably when 2G started, and now we have 5G, and now next is 6G. And it's -- I'm talking about all of our health. And I go downtown Naples, they have a tower right on Fifth Avenue, giant tower. I don't think people are aware of all the physical -- and diseases and types of health implications these have. And I don't know how many megabytes you've got going there on this tower. But I mean, that's just what I would like to say. And I have all kinds of information I want to leave with you because I would really like you to study, because I know that there's more towers going up every single day, and I've -- and it's a major health impact on our population and our children. And I just would like to leave that with you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. MITCHELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Johnston, I would hope that you would be prepared at least to discuss that, because I will have a point on that as well, but... Okay. Next public speaker, please. MR. ALONSO: We're transitioning to our virtual speakers starting with Sue Zimmerman, followed by Carlos de Miguel, III. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Ms. Zimmerman? Hello, are you there? She is connected? MS. PADRON: She was. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: She was. All right. Let's go to the next speaker, please. MR. ALONSO: Ah, she just appeared. Let's see if -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is she on again? Ms. Zimmerman, are you there? MR. ALONSO: Ms. Zimmerman, can you try to unmute yourself, perhaps? We can't hear you. MS. SNYDER: Maybe she's trying to call from Third Avenue. December 19, 2024 Page 33 of 40 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, we will have to go to the next speaker, please. MR. ALONSO: Our next speaker's going to be Carlos de Miguel, III. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The name? MR. ALONSO: Carlos de Miguel, III. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Carlos, are you online, please? We're not getting anything. MR. ALONSO: He appears on video and appears to be unmuted, but we can't hear him as well. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here comes tech. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'll see if Troy can maybe do some magic here. MR. TROY MILLER: We should be hearing them. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. We can try again. Ms. Zimmerman, are you on the line? We'll go back. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. We'll give them another minute here to see if they can solve this problem. Troy, what do we think; doable? MR. TROY MILLER: We should be hearing them. We should be hearing them, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. TROY MILLER: Oh, they're very low. I know what's going on. We've got something loose on the computer, sir. I'm going to need a flashlight. You're going to have to give me a minute. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that -- with that, let's take a five-minute break until we get this fixed. Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 10:52 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. We're back on. So can we try Ms. Zimmerman. MR. ALONSO: Ms. Zimmerman, can you hear us? It appears that she's speaking but we still cannot get any audio. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, boy. Well, I would -- how about our -- Carlos, was it; is he available? MR. de MIGUEL: Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. de MIGUEL: Excellent, excellent. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I live on Third Avenue Southwest, and I am within the project location map on the notice. And this is -- I just want to echo what the gentleman from Shutts & Bowen said about being a life-safety issue. These are all homes that are on over two acres of property. A lot of them have a lot of dense trees and what have you, and a lot of neighbors of mine, we work in our yards. Aside from that, my neighbor directly to the east is a 6-acre vacant triple parcel, and my neighbor to the rear is a vacant two-and-a-half-acre parcel, and it has become a refuge for Florida panther and black bear, which I think is wonderful; however, wildlife possess risks. A lot of the neighbors in my area are -- they're fearful of taking out their trash December 19, 2024 Page 34 of 40 containers past sundown. When mama bears have their cubs, we all know they can be very unpredictable. I have absolutely no cell phone coverage whatsoever at my home; therefore, with a cell phone in the pocket, if I'm working in the yard further away from my home, if I have an accident with a power tool or a tree, you know, that may happen to come down, or if I'm, God forbid, attacked by a panther or a bear, reaching in my pocket and calling 911 and the inability to do so at this time could cost myself, an elderly person, or even a child their life. So I want to echo the life-safety issue here, and I don't think it was touched upon with enough emphasis. And then number two, upon a quick search, there does not seem to be any quantifiable evidence from neither the American Cancer Society nor the World Health Organization on the radiological effects of a cell phone radio tower. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you for your comments. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Can I ask a question, sir? Is he still there? MR. de MIGUEL: Yes. Yes, I'm still here. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do you use Verizon for your cell phone? MR. de MIGUEL: Yes, sir, I do. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. Thank you. MR. de MIGUEL: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Can we, one more time, with Ms. Zimmerman. And that's a -- MR. ALONSO: Ms. Zimmerman, you're unmuted now. You can go ahead and speak. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we'll have to move on. Sorry, Ms. Zimmerman. James, if you could discuss this. On this issue with the -- of course, with the impact of 5G, it's been discussed several times in past petitions. We've had at least those who attested with their credentials as experts, and as was stated, there's never -- there's always a debate on the conclusive evidence. In fact, I asked one question during one of our past meetings. I believe there's more radiation when you hold the phone to your ear and you're using the phone than there is standing 10 feet from a tower. MR. JOHNSTON: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So anybody that uses a phone, sits there and has the phone up to their ear, they're getting more radiation than they would ever get from a tower. But if you could clarify what you know or what your studies have shown. MR. JOHNSTON: Sure. And I would be remiss if I didn't say, per federal law, the federal government has preempted this issue on health, and it's not allowed to be a part of a decision in a local zoning hearing -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. MR. JOHNSTON: -- and that was in your staff report as well. So I want to mention that first. But then also, you know, say to address that, yes, you know, we don't think there is risk with proposed communication towers because they meet the conservative FCC RF requirements. And again, the FCC, which has the -- has the duty and the responsibility to set the RF standards, has set them, and when setting them, they were very conservative. December 19, 2024 Page 35 of 40 And the RF emissions from towers are hundreds if not a thousand levels below that conservative max allowed by the FCC. So again, I think, as the Chairman mentioned, their RF comes from everywhere, from your actual phone, Bluetooth devices, a baby monitor, all, you know, utilizes RF frequencies. And so a tower set where antennas are set at 150 feet radiating out to the horizon do not generate health impacts for people. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. And, Ms. Mitchell, I encourage you, again, when this goes before the Board of County Commissioners -- but it is clear it is not a criteria for denying a request. It is not -- there's no criteria at all involved in discussing the health impacts of this. This is strictly a zoning issue from the standpoint -- we look at it in accordance with the criteria that's described in the Land Development Code. So understand your concerns, but again, it's -- the health concerns is an issue -- if the county commissioners -- and I hate to say I'm punting it to the county commissioners, I'm not, but if they want to look at it from a different perspective -- but we, as planning commissioners, we understand. We understand your concerns, but it is not a criteria. And in fact, as stated, it cannot be a criteria for the direction and location of these various towers. Any other -- Ms. Zimmerman, is she back? MR. ALONSO: She chatted her question, if it's okay for me to go ahead and ask it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. MR. ALONSO: She wanted to know if the issue would impact any property values. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. James, if you, Mr.-- James Johnston, if you could address that. MR. JOHNSTON: Sure. And again, we have had studies done on various tower sites that show proximity to a communication tower does not impact property values one way or the other. And in fact, you know, in talking to local, you know, county property appraisers, they don't use that in factoring property values, proximity to a tower. And again, we would say we've tried to locate this on what we think is the most appropriate property in this area, which is an existing electric substation site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. Just to clarify, Mr. Johnston, so you are going to be putting a fence around that area that the staff has suggested? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So that's going to be there? MR. JOHNSTON: Yep. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And then the other question is, you represent Verizon? MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And there -- we understand, two other carriers that can go there. I understand it's AT&T and T-Mobile. That's what I heard? MR. JOHNSTON: I mean, those are the two primary national providers other than Verizon. December 19, 2024 Page 36 of 40 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And do we know when they're going to be -- because, for instance, I have AT&T, and if I lived in this area, this would not benefit me. Do we know when those other two carriers -- MR. JOHNSTON: I can't speak to T-Mobile and AT&T. Again, RF systems are design systems, so it depends on where your antennas are, number of customers, all those antennas. So everyone's is a little different, so I can't tell you where AT&T exactly needs one in the area, but if -- again, you know, the code, if there is a need by AT&T or T-Mobile or another provider in the area, the code requires them to look first in their search ring, is there an existing tower on which they could collocate, so this tower would have the capability of collocating. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck. Go ahead. MR. ALONSO: Ms. Zimmerman has a follow-up question here in regards to her previous question. She wants to know if there's any way to receive the studies based on the property value question. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is there any what? MR. ALONSO: She would like to know if she could receive the studies that were used around the question around the property values. MR. JOHNSTON: I mentioned I haven't -- there's not been a study done for this specific site. I'm saying there are studies out there that we have looked at which do not -- which show this. So, I mean, I'm sure they're, like everything, available on the Internet as well for viewing. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That answers her question. I don't have a study, and for -- Ms. Zimmerman is listening. It's not -- again, it's not a criteria we look at as part of the zoning. We don't take into consideration any what I would call impact on the value of housing. We can look at it from a Comp Plan amendment -- or Comp Plan consistency, but this is not a Comprehensive Plan. This is strictly just a zoning request. With that, Chuck, go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What other -- I don't know. I'm not trying to get into Verizon's business, but what other carriers use Verizon's signal? I'm trying to figure out how many carriers from day one will be receiving cell phone service. Not AT&T, just -- is it purely just Verizon customers? MR. JOHNSTON: I mean, these are Verizon antennas, so therefore, Verizon customers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Got it. MR. JOHNSTON: I'll have the Verizon RF person come up. He can better answer the question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Perfect. MR. JOHNSTON: But -- again, this is Bill Compton. MR. COMPTON: Hi, William Compton. THE COURT REPORTER: You didn't stand up to be sworn. MR. COMPTON: I did earlier, but I'll do it again. THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, you did? I didn't see you. It's okay. MR. COMPTON: Okay. William Compton -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name please, for the record. I know you did before, but state your name and company you work for. December 19, 2024 Page 37 of 40 MR. COMPTON: Yes, sir. William Compton, Verizon Wireless, 7701 East Telecom Parkway, Tampa. The answer to your question is you see a lot of advertisements and commercials. Cricket is a big one right now. What's the other one? Mint Wireless. They advertise, "We don't own the towers. We just sell the service." Those type of services -- I can't tell you which ones. You can look it up on the Internet. I'm not supposed to disclose that to the public, but it's public record. You can look it up and see whose networks those -- basically, they're called MVNOs. I can't remember what the acronym stands for. Basically they resell service on the other carriers. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. MR. COMPTON: So yes, there are other customers. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Other customers that -- MR. COMPTON: That pay a bill to Mint Mobile that then use Verizon service, then Mint pays Verizon, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm just trying to broaden the scope of who's going to receive service. Because this is a dead zone. That's in District 3, which is my district, and I can tell you that I live out there, and I don't have any services, so -- and I understand where other folks are coming from. You know, if -- I don't want to sound abrupt, but if the concern is not having 911 coverage, there is CenturyLink. You can get a landline. MR. COMPTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: But everybody does cell now. That's just been the way it's gone. How far does this signal go out? Because from the map alone, it looks like you're literally only servicing basically what would be called Weber Woods and Collier Woods, which is from Vanderbilt south to a little bit past Golden Gate Boulevard. So it's not like we're getting very deep into Golden Gate where there really is no signal. I know there's another tower out there that's going to be -- I think that still has to go through the Board of County Commissioners, or has it already been passed? MR. COMPTON: There's one to the east. We called it Golden Gate Boat. It's been through zoning for about two years now, and we're still trying to build it. But, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. COMPTON: But to answer your question, the way we determine what we call reliable and unreliable coverage, we used to give what was called propagation maps, which were just signal level based. The problem now is we have different frequency bands. Each one of those frequency bands goes a different distance. Each one of those frequency bands has a different amount of capacity associated with that frequency band because of how much spectrum we have in that band. So to broadly answer your question, the reliable service that we're providing, that's going to be very good service. Does it mean as soon as you step out of the green you have no service? Absolutely not. It's just that's where we're saying that's going to give us really reliable service. You can use our home Internet service there. You can actually use your phone as a hot spot to actually do, you know, stuff like that. That's what that definition is. So yes, you -- the footprint will be bigger. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And as you go further out, you lose bars, December 19, 2024 Page 38 of 40 let's say. You're going to lose signal bars. MR. COMPTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: You're still going to have the benefit of some type of service whereas if somebody has none right now. MR. COMPTON: Absolutely. And also to be accurate as well, if you're out in that area with an AT&T phone today and you don't have service with AT&T, your phone will then -- as you try and make a 911 call, it will go to any available service. That's a requirement of 911. And it will use Verizon's network. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's a great note. Thank you for that. How long do these towers typically take to construct? MR. COMPTON: Actual construction, a month, six weeks. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Month. MR. COMPTON: The problem is once we get through this, as I stated with our Golden Gate Boat site, it's been through -- October of this past year was our two-year anniversary of getting through Board of County Commissioner zoning approved. So we're still trying to go through all kinds of other stuff that has to go through the county. So we're ready to build them yesterday. And then also to preempt your question -- or to answer your question, a lot of my job, as an RF design engineer, I also do traffic planning for the state, and as part of that, we are notified of areas where, hey, AT&T built a tower over here, and now we're at a competitive disadvantage. So it behooves us to go on that tower. So a lot of times build it, and they will come; it happens. So I can't speak as to how soon we'd be able to fit into AT&T and T-Mobile's budget. Usually it's a yearly type cycle. But as soon as we get our side on there, they'll be on notice, and they'll be wanting to come here. When, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Sorry to keep asking you questions. MR. COMPTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: But I know I asked you at the last meeting, why not go with, like, a micro tower? Why not -- like those smaller ones that you see like on lights poles and things like that? MR. COMPTON: I have a great answer to that. And the problem is -- a lot of you probably remember the -- it wasn't this past hurricane season, maybe even the one prior, but the entire Golden Gate area, the Estates planning area all went out without Internet service because the CO for their actual wire line system went out, and that went out because they had a roof blown off or they had a power outage there. Our small cell sites, just by definition, because they're in the right-of-way, they're along the road, we can't put a generator there, and we also can't put any substantial battery backup power. So as soon as you get a power outage, all that service goes away. So these macro sites, they have either a generator on site that we cycle to make sure, just like the previous, they cycle it and make sure that it's going to work, or they have provisions for a mobile that we can pull up. These small cells don't have any of those provisions. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: All right. Thank you. Sorry I kept rambling on there, but I appreciate it. MR. COMPTON: I love educating. I love it. No problem. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other discussions? I see none. You December 19, 2024 Page 39 of 40 do -- do you have another question? MR. ALONSO: Yes. One of our speakers has another question, and the question is, why are landlines not a solution? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Why are landlines not sufficient? MR. de MIGUEL: Actually -- MR. ALONSO: Correct, and it came from Carlos, so he's able to, I guess -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I can't answer that. I would say landlines are a solution, and you can go VoIP as well, Voice over Internet Provider. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: All of the houses -- MR. de MIGUEL: Good morning. The gentleman misunderstood my comment. It wasn't a question. The comment I wanted to raise was that landlines, I believe, are not a solution, and I'll tell you why. All these properties are two-and-a-half-acre properties, everyone, and if you're out walking the dog or you're out working 300 feet and you're in the back of your property, which you have all the right to do so to clean it and what have you, or you're walking the dog, there's no wireless/landline type that you're going to have any signal to the house. And if you're walking the dog, get attacked by a bear, well, you need to be able to call 911. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. de MIGUEL: And you won't be able to do that with a landline, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I understand. Again, we closed the public hearing, but I just took that one last -- or public comment, but I accepted and took that last comment. So any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do we have a motion on the floor? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll make a motion to approve as presented. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And second from anyone? Subject to the removal of Condition No. 2. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes; unanimous. And with that -- MR. JOHNSTON: Happy Holidays. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- do we have any other comments or concerns? For my colleagues, we did -- the Board did approve a Bert Harris claim for the rezoning of the Links development, and that just moves forward, as I understand, then, based on that Bert Harris settlement claim. So there's no rezone application that comes in, correct? So that's another development on U.S. 41, just -- 370 units, was it? I think December 19, 2024 Page 40 of 40 somewhere in that neighborhood. MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Something like that. I don't have the exact number, but -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. And with that, we are adjourned. MR. BELLOWS: And we wish Mike well, and hopefully he -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I hope so, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We extend a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hanukkah, and stay healthy. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:13 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION __________________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, 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.