Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/20/2025February 20,2025 Page 1 of 60 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 20, 2025 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 Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Randy Sparrazza ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Kevin Summers, Manager - Technical Systems Operations Ashley Eoff, Planning Technician February 20,2025 Page 2 of 60 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Good morning. We have a fairly good-sized crowd here today. We have a very heavy and busy schedule today. So welcome to the February 29th [sic], 2025, Collier County Planning Commission. And if I could ask all, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And if I could ask Commissioner Shea, would he please take the roll call. 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.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is not here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: He has an excused absence. He sent me a note, and he has a client he had to meet with. So all is good. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here. Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a quorum, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. And with that, I just want to note the next meeting is March 6th. Ray, did we schedule that for midafternoon now, or Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes. The March 6th meeting is going to start at 3 o'clock. We have two -- we have one petition on. It's relatively minor. It's an adjustment of FAR. I think that's going to go pretty quick. After that, I'm going to provide the CCPC with the Planning Commission 101 kind of that was requested by some of the newer members just to go over some of the roles, responsibilities, and where the Planning Commission sits in relationship to the statutes and the planning process within the county. And then at 5:05 we're going to hear the Immokalee Area Master Plan LDC amendments as well as the housing plan LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So that's 3 and 5, right? MR. BOSI: Yes. Three o'clock's the start of the meeting, and then at 5:05 is the start of the nighttime hearings. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Do we have any projected absences from that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'll all be here, so it appears we'll have a quorum. Excellent. And the 5:05 meeting is maybe 30 minutes, an hour; what do you think? MR. BOSI: I think probably an hour. It's LDC code to implement two -- two GMP amendments. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: So these are -- I don't want to say they're perfunctionary [sic], but these February 20,2025 Page 3 of 60 are -- these are instructed by the GMP, and these are the regulations to implement the GMP amendments that were related to the housing and then the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And we do have consultants from the neighborhood company. Pat Vanasse is going to -- is the consultant who has helped the Immokalee CRA with the -- establish the amendments, so they're going to -- they'll be able to provide some real specificity and kind of walk you through the ins and outs of that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Great. Thanks. Next item on the agenda, approval of the minutes. We have one set of minutes on the agenda. That's the January 16th, 2025. Can I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second, anybody. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. All right. We'll proceed then -- Ray, do you have BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Good morning. On February 11th, the Board of County Commissioners continued the communication tower. That was the 150-foot-tall communication tower that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. There was, however, an objection to that petition concerning the fall zone, and it was continued to the March 11th BCC meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That was the tower out at Ochopee? Is that the one? MR. BOSI: No, that was the one off of Collier Boulevard and Weber. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: It's a 150-foot tower, but because it's on an FP&L substation -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, I recall it. MR. BOSI: -- and it's an FP&L tower, they don't have your traditional breakpoints. And because of its position, it could have fallen onto an adjoining property. I mean, it's outside of a structure, but the Board was concerned about that, and there wasn't -- and their representative from FP&L didn't have their engineers there to explain why they don't have a break zone and why their towers do not fail. They're saying -- and the reason why they said that they didn't want the tower to be collapsing, they designed the tower to -- you know, to withstand 185-mile-plus winds. So they're going to bring their experts, their engineers to provide testimony to the BCC. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, they were here for our meeting, that engineer, I recall. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Anyways. MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes, they were. MR. BELLOWS: There was also, on the summary agenda, the Land Development Code amendments for the food truck park. That was approved subject to the Planning Commission recommendations since it was a summary agenda item. And the Growth Management Plan amendment for the RLSA overlay to eliminate the cap on towns, that was approved on the summary as well. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Next item is Chairman's report. I just note that we do February 20,2025 Page 4 of 60 have two items on today's agenda that will require EAC approval as well, and that's the Tamiami Trail 50-acre subdistrict. So just to note as well that we are hearing -- sitting as the EAC for those items. Nothing on the consent agenda. ***So we'll proceed with the first public hearing. And there's no oath required for this because it is legislative in nature. So I'll ask commissioners for any disclosures. MS. LOCKHART: Text materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Backup materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff materials only, but I did speak to David about the presentation, and that was David Weeks who is our presenter next. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Stuff materials only. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Materials and reviewed with staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, David, all yours. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. I am David Weeks. I work for Nova Engineering and Environmental, LLC. I'm a contract employee with Collier County. The GMP, Growth Management Plan, amendment before you is here for the adoption hearing. For those of you that have been on the Planning Commission for more than just a few weeks, you saw this petition previously at what we call transmittal hearings. At the transmittal hearings, you recommended approval with some minor changes. The Board of County Commissioners did approve the amendment for transmittal to the various state agencies that are tasked with reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments or Growth Management Plan amendments for statutory compliance. None of those agencies had any comments or objections to these amendments. These amendments are all what we call cleanup in nature. They're not substantive. They do not change any approved densities or intensities of land use, restructuring text, adding clarifying language and so forth. Since this amendment was before this body a few months ago, staff has modified it to add some additional cleanup changes; all still non-substantive. There are two things I need to -- I want to put on the record today, two very minor changes, but it's just the fact that the ordinance doesn't reflect these changes. Here's the first one. And Policy 1.9 in the Future Land Use Element, where in this case overlays are listed, the JLM Living East Residential Overlay was not adopted when the overlay itself was adopted about a year or so ago. So this cleanup change is to add that. I didn't catch this until after the ordinance was prepared. And then the second change is also highlighted in blue here. The words "standard industrial classification," those appear in the ordinance, but they're not underlined to identify them as being additions to the text. So with these two minor changes, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'll ask my planning commissioners, since we've seen this before -- but are there any burning questions? Unless you want to run through this entire thing. We've all seen this. I open it up to any questions from commissioners. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I see none. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I move for approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a motion to approve. Can we have a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. February 20,2025 Page 5 of 60 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposed. David, excellent job, as usual. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I thought you were going to steal, you know, victory from the jaws of defeat or defeat from the jaws of victory, one of the two. MR. WEEKS: Not me. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: High-paid consultant. ***All right. With that, we'll proceed to the next item, and that is -- these were two items that are companion items that were continued from the January hearings, and that's PL20230017521. That's the Growth Management Plan amendment that has to do with NC Squared Mixed Use Overlay, and then the companion items -- excuse me. Those were the wrong numbers I read. The two items are PL20230017980. That's NC Squared Mixed Use Overlay, Growth Management Plan amendment, and a companion item, PL202301 -- 0017979, NC Squared PUDR. With those two items -- and with that, do we have disclosures, please. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich on this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Tammy -- or Amy. I'm sorry. MS. LOCKHART: None. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich about this as well. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I reviewed the materials, met with staff, and visited the site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So those who wish to speak, please stand and -- for the oath. Terri, if you would issue the oath. 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: Okay. With that, I guess before we start, though, how many registered speakers do we have for this? MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, you have about 10 registered speakers for this. Two have been ceded extra time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So two have been ceded. How many persons have ceded to those two? MR. SUMMERS: One person has got -- one person ceded extra time. Another speaker has about four ceded. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I just did that in the front just so we know and understand what we're dealing with. So, all right. With that, Mr. Yovanovich, the floor is yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, and good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant, HAA Capital, LLC. With me today is Jessica Harrelson. She's our professional planner; Norm Trebilcock is February 20,2025 Page 6 of 60 our transportation consultant; Alvaro Yuste is our professional engineer; and Bethany Brosious is our environmental consultant. She's with Passarella. What you have before you today are amendments to an existing Growth Management Plan subdistrict and an existing PUD. This existing subdistrict and this PUD were actually ahead of their times when they came through the process and were approved in 2001 [sic]. Back in 2001, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District did not have provisions for affordable housing density bonuses and did not have provisions for allowing for neighborhood retail within affordable housing projects. Since that, in 2023, the Growth Management Plan has been amended to allow for what we're asking for today. But since we had this existing subdistrict, we have to amend both the subdistrict and the PUD because the subdistricts were very specific as to the types of affordable housing units, and pretty much that's the reason we're front of you today. So if this land were vacant, I'd be here asking for you -- asking you to approve a project that would include rental units with both market-rate and affordable housing units. The Growth Management Plan would allow up to 12.2 units per acre. As you've read your staff report, staff did not think 12.2 units per acre was an appropriate density. Our original request was for 249 units. You've received a supplemental staff report to bring that down to 205 units. So that's basically 8.4 units per acre, under the 12.2 that the Growth Management Plan would allow. And then our uses that we're asking for are consistent with the C-1 through C-3 uses that are allowed in today's Growth Management Plan. But since it's not vacant land, we do have to make some changes which are up on the screen. What we're asking to do is to reduce the existing commercial that's on the site from 44,400 square feet to 36,500 square feet, and we're looking to eliminate a 12,000 square -- daycare that's currently approved on the site, and we're looking to -- this project was originally approved, like I said, in 2001 [sic], and it was intended to be a for-sale affordable housing project serving people that made 120 percent and below the median income. There were no market-rate units in that project. There's been a few -- the cost of construction has increased to where we basically can't build them for what we would have to sell them, and there's no ability to subsidize these units with other market-rate units. So the options are have a project that will have 44,000 square feet commercial, 12,000 square feet, and no affordable housing, or we could modify the request to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan to allow for rental units consistent with the projects that are going through now with a 30 percent commitment to affordable housing at a lower income threshold. Fifteen percent of those units will be at 80 percent and below the median income, and 15 percent of those units will be at 100 percent below the median income instead of the 120 percent that was previously approved on this site. What you see to the right, I guess, is the table you're going to see -- I think it's the table you're going to see at your next night meeting for the housing LDC-related amendments. And you will see that what we're requesting is consistent with what is being proposed as the new affordable housing density bonus table. That's another reason I'm here today is because this table doesn't exist, so I have to structure my Growth Management Plan amendment based upon the old table, which you can see had different density ranges for those categories. And, in fact, the median income category of 80 to 100 percent doesn't even exist in the current table. So what we're proposing to you today is consistent with what the Board and Planning Commission has approved in the last several land development -- I'm sorry -- projects that include both market-rate and affordable units in it and is consistent with what's being proposed to change to the LDC. The good news is if the Board adopts that table, we won't have to do Growth Management Plan amendments anymore. We will just come forward with PUD zoning, and we will ask for units that are less than what the code would allow in the Growth Management Plan, which would be 11.2 units per acre, and we'll ask for the bonuses that are currently allowed -- will be allowed in February 20,2025 Page 7 of 60 the Land Development Code. So you'll -- you we won't have concurrent Growth Management Plan amendments in the future should this table be adopted. So what -- and Jessica is going to take you through the details of the master plan and compatibility and consistency. The property we're talking about is up here. It's on Immokalee Road. And here's the property right here on Immokalee Road. Is it Valencia Trails? MS. HARRELSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: For some reason I was blanking on it. This is Valencia Trails right here. This is their main entrance. And Jessica will take you through in a minute what we're proposing. And you can see -- and you will see in our master plan in the future that there is an existing preserve here, and there's substantial setback from that preserve on our master plan, and then there's a substantial setback along our western property boundary before we get to residential. That's the reason staff -- you saw the original staff report. Staff wanted us to go to 195 units. We said we do need the number of units -- we can go to 205 and still have an economically viable project, but what we can do by shrinking the number of units, we can increase the setbacks from our properties. And you will see that we are several hundred feet away from any of the residential structures in Valencia Trails, and I believe that's why Mr. Bosi agreed with our request to drop to 205 instead of the 195, but staff will deal with that in their proposal. Jessica will also take you through the several changes we made to the PUD to address concerns that were raised by Valencia Trails residents at the neighborhood information meeting with regard to lighting, noise, and other issues related to the project. What we're asking today is to modify both the existing Growth Management Plan subdistrict and the PUD associated with it. This is the actual Future Land Use Map that will be modified. Essentially it's the same as what's there today. The text will change a little bit based upon the provisions that are in front of you. That's an overview of what we're proposing. You can ask questions of me now or you can wait. I think hopefully we'll address many of your questions through our presentation. And with that, I'm going to turn it over, and we'll go through the planning and compatibility and consistency with the various review criteria associated with this project. And before I turn it over, what you will see and what you hear all the time for projects that are on Immokalee Road is traffic, traffic, traffic. And you will see I already have an approved project -- and I know you've read the materials -- that would have far more traffic than what we're proposing through these proposed amendments by eliminating some of the commercial and eliminating the daycare. The actual traffic impact to Immokalee Road is reduced by this project even though we are increasing the number of residential units. So with that, I will turn it over to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, before you leave, again, just for clarity, if -- you said if that amendment were passed, you could put 205 units in today without a GMP amendment? MR. YOVANOVICH: I wouldn't have to do a GMP amendment. Well, actually, in this case I have to do a GMP amendment because I have a subdistrict. What I'm saying is if this were -- I didn't have an existing subdistrict and I didn't have an existing PUD, I would just be here for the PUD, not the Growth Management Plan change nor the -- I wouldn't need a Growth Management Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many units could you put in there today under the existing RLSA rules? MR. YOVANOVICH: Under the existing RLSA rules, I could put up to 12.2 units per acre -- actually, with the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. And you're asking for 8.4? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. February 20,2025 Page 8 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm trying to push my button, but I don't know how to do it. But I just wanted to make a clarification. You've got a number of accessory uses in the residential tract. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are they going to be 30 feet set back or the 100 that you previously mentioned? Because there's leasing, there's garages, there's pools. Those are all listed as the accessory uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: The accessory -- well, the leasing's going to be within the building, I understand. But garages and things like that can still be in the 30-foot setback. They're the lower -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: From the western boundary. Okay, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have -- before Jessica comes up -- Charles. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. My understanding is this project was originally conceived and approved four years ago; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: My question is -- maybe I'm butting into the wrong areas -- what's taken so long to get us to this point? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the primary -- the primary thing that's taken so long is costs of construction have increased so significantly, my client said, "Rich, I can't afford to build the project. What do I do?" So we started this amendment process. And staff's been great, but it takes about a year before we get -- once we submit our documentation to start the amendment process to get to the public hearings. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So it was basically a cost issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's absolutely a cost issue. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you'll hear -- you'll hear another petition later that has a similar -- similar issue for the building the for-sale product. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No other questions? Jessica. MS. HARRELSON: Good morning. I'm Jessica Harrelson. I'm a certified planner with Peninsula Engineering, and I'm going to walk you through the details of the requested changes from what is currently approved today. So beginning with the PUD master plan, we have increased the buffer along the western boundary which is directly adjacent to Valencia Trails. We have also relocated the stormwater outfall location from the area of the southern preserve to the western boundary. This location is actually consistent now with the Valencia Trails ERP permit which requires a drainage connection in this location. And we have also added a tract line that separates the commercial and residential tracts. These uses have not changed. The areas of these uses have not changed from the original plan. Access is still from Immokalee Road and Catawba Street, and the preserve locations and configurations are still in the same location and remain unchanged. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. This is still a deviation because you are splitting the preserve? MS. HARRELSON: Yeah, that's an existing -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Existing. MS. HARRELSON: Yeah, correct. February 20,2025 Page 9 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you're asking for the deviation again? MS. HARRELSON: No. We're asking for no changes from the existing deviation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. MS. HARRELSON: For surrounding land uses -- Rich kind of touched on this -- we have Valencia Trails to the south, developed single-family residential homes. To the west, also Valencia Trails, but within this area it's open space, landscaping, water management. There are no homes directly abutting the site along this western boundary here. To the east is an agricultural site known as Crawford Landscaping. It's a nursery and lawn business. And to the north beyond the Immokalee Road right-of-way is the Twin Eagles Golf Course and some preserve areas. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Jessica, if I could ask a question. MS. HARRELSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That southern boundary that you have, what's the width on that southern boundary between Valencia Trails, which I guess is Triton Way, and your project on that south side? How thick is that preserve? MS. HARRELSON: Well, the preserve is just over three and a half acres. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Three and a half acres. So it's three and a half acres from -- MS. HARRELSON: I think it's about 400 feet wide from the south going north. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MS. HARRELSON: You're welcome. So for residential development standards, I'll touch on the changes that we've made. Again, we've increased the principal structure setback from the western boundary, again, adjacent to Valencia Trails, from 30 feet to 100 feet, we've increased the setback from the southern preserve to also 100 feet, and we've increased the building height from 50 -- from 40 feet to 50 feet. Sorry. There are no significant changes being requested to the development standards for commercial uses. Building separation was updated from 10 feet to half the sum of the building heights, and language was also added to allow for no setback or buffer along that internal tract line. That will allow the PUD to kind of be developed as a uniform -- unified form of development. For permitted uses, there are no changes to the list of permitted commercial uses. And again, for -- residential multifamily dwelling units is the only permitted residential use that will remain. Townhomes was deleted. The project is currently approved for 100 percent affordable housing. It's subject to an existing affordable housing agreement with Collier County. Again, owner occupied. This rezone is seeking to rescind that existing agreement and, of the total units, 15 percent will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80 percent of the AMI, and then the remaining 15 percent will be rented to those whose incomes are up to and include 100 percent of AMI. The existing PUD establishes a daily trip cap of 463 a.m. and 467 p.m. two-way peak-hour trips. With the requested changes, there is a net reduction in overall traffic with 226 a.m. and 267 p.m. two-way trips. This is a significant reduction, again, and with the concern about congestion along this segment of the Immokalee Road corridor, this is a benefit. A neighborhood information meeting was held on July of last year. It was properly noticed and advertised. An estimated 60 individuals attended in person, and another 10 participated virtually. And at the meeting and also following the meeting, there's been quite a few concerns raised by the Valencia Trails residents, and I'm going to walk through each of those concerns and how we've addressed each of those. So the main concern has been increased density in residential -- in rental units, a change to rental units. And although there's an increase in residential density, there's been a reduction in the permitted gross floor area for commercial uses, again, resulting in that net reduction in traffic. And a market study was prepared and submitted as required with the Growth Management Plan amendment which outlines the need for more rental units within our county. February 20,2025 Page 10 of 60 Views from Valencia Trails and increased building heights. We have prepared line-of-sight exhibits, and I'll get to those soon. But these exhibits demonstrate there will be little to know visual impacts on Valencia Trails. Setbacks, again, were increased from the west and from the southern preserve, and the perimeter landscape buffer adjacent to Valencia Trails increased from 15 feet to 30 feet. And we also added commitment language that "mature existing vegetation will remain within that buffer to the extent possible." There were concerns raised about potential noise from outdoor recreational activities within the residential tract and outdoor amplified sound and music within the commercial tract. So to address those concerns, we incorporated language into the PUD prohibiting tennis, pickleball, and basketball courts within the residential tract, and those were specifically raised at the NIM. And outdoor amplified sound is limited to televisions only within the commercial tract and has limited daily hours. Again, traffic was another big concern, and the proposed changes result in a net reduction in trips. For lighting, a commitment to use Dark Skies compliant lighting has been incorporated into the PUD to address any concerns about light pollution. Short-term and monthly rentals was a concern. And the developer has committed to an eight-month -- a minimum eight-month lease term with residents having the option to go month to month after the completion of their full lease term. There were general concerns brought up about wildlife. Again, we have a significant preserve area on site, 6.2 acres. We have a commitment to submit a big fox squirrel and black bear management plan at the time of SDP, and the developer will follow any mitigation measures as required as they go through the permitting process. Gating was a concern, so the developer committed to gating the multifamily development. And lastly, there was concerns raised about stormwater management. NC Square will have no negative impacts on Valencia Trails' stormwater management system. And during the permitting process, the ERP permitting process for Valencia Trails, due to historic flow the development is required to continue providing a conveyance route for the NC Square site, and a drainage connection was provided along the NC Square's western boundary to allow for discharge. This is the previous -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Let me interrupt you, because I want to talk wildlife. MS. HARRELSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The concerns that were raised with wildlife, was that a concern in regards to noted listed or listed species or listed species habitat, or was it primarily because the folks wanted that to remain -- MS. HARRELSON: They wanted -- yeah, it was -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- a wooded area, not be developed? MS. HARRELSON: Yes, correct. They wanted it to remain undeveloped. There was concerns about black bears being in the area and them using that site as their habitat. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But has your environmental consultant gone through the permitting process, the federal permitting and state permitting process, primarily to Section 404? MS. HARRELSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Section 10, consultation? I'm going to ask, because I know it's going to come up from the public. And since you talked wildlife, I'll ask it. Go ahead. Yes. Have you gone through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 process? Are there any impacted or noted wetlands or listed species through Section 7, consultation? MS. BROSIUS: Good morning, Bethany Brosious, for the record. We are currently in the permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. BROSIUS: There are no wetlands on site. February 20,2025 Page 11 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. BROSIUS: Regarding wildlife concerns, we have coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under a technical assistance program -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. BROSIUS: -- and have had the project review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And for mitigation, typically this area of Florida, the bonneted bat -- and I would suspect you may even have to pay PHUs for this. I don't know if they were even identified in the panther habitat area. But U.S. Fish and Wild would let you know. MS. BROSIUS: Yes. It is in the secondary zone for the Florida panther. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It is? MS. BROSIUS: PHUs were purchased -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They were, okay. MS. BROSIUS: -- previously for the project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And approved through U.S. Fish and Wildlife? MS. BROSIUS: Yes, through their technical assistance program. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, I just wanted to put that on the record, because I know it's going to come up. And I would guess the desire, as I stated, was that the folks would rather have this stay as wooded -- which it's already been approved for zoning. So regardless, it's going to be developed in some form or fashion. Okay, thank you. Sorry, Jessica. I just -- MS. HARRELSON: No, no. You're fine. I'm glad Bethany's here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I wanted to stay on that before we went to something else. MS. HARRELSON: Okay. So what you see here is the original plan that was presented during the original entitlement process. Commercial and daycare at the northeast, the townhomes were in this area just north of that southern preserve, and then the three-story multifamily located here just south of the northern preserve. And you can see that townhomes and the three-story multifamily building were originally at the 30-foot minimum setback line. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What were they height-wise? MS. HARRELSON: Forty feet for multifamily, and 35 -- up to 35 for the townhomes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actual or zoned? MS. HARRELSON: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actual or zoned height? MS. HARRELSON: Zoned 40. This is the current site plan for the residential tract. Compared to the original plan, you can see that the buildings have been shifted from Valencia Trails significantly, and the residential buildings are more centralized within that residential tract. Okay. So getting to the line-of-sight exhibit, this first one depicts the proposed site plan. This is standing along the entrance drive of Valencia Trails looking east towards that four-story building. You know, you can see that we have nearly 140 feet of existing open space and vegetation within Valencia Trails, that existing vegetation that's going to remain within that 30-foot buffer, parking, and then the building. So there may be an opportunity for residents to see some rooftops in this location as they're driving in and out of Valencia Trails. This is the plan that was previously proposed under the existing zoning. It's, again, the same viewpoint, looking at a three-story multifamily building that was along that minimum 30-foot setback. There's no enhancements. It was a 15-foot buffer. So you can see that the visual impacts here are more than what is proposed today. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is there a wall along that property boundary? MS. HARRELSON: I believe Valencia Trails has a fence. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They have a fence? MS. HARRELSON: I believe so. February 20,2025 Page 12 of 60 So this is just shifting south along the entrance drive just a bit to look towards the proposed three-story building on the current concept. Again, now here we have close to 170 feet of open space within Valencia Trails. A lot of existing vegetation, parking, and then the building. In this instance, with the three-story building, there's no views from Valencia Trails at all. And, again, this is along the entrance drive. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is that distance where the car is represented, is that the distance from the closest point to the boundary, which would be -- as I look on the aerial it would be coming through the gate area? MS. HARRELSON: Yeah. This is coming through the gate. So it's from the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, okay. MS. HARRELSON: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MS. HARRELSON: Okay. And this is a view of the existing MPUD plan that was previously proposed looking at the two-story townhome allowed to be up to 35 feet. Again, on that 30-foot minimum setback line. And the views, again, are more impactful here. And the last two views I have are from the south. The first one is what is currently proposed. Oh, it's 240 feet, I'm sorry, about -- roughly for the preserve area from the property boundary. Not 400. I was mistaken. So, again, this buffer -- or this preserve creates a significant buffer between Valencia Trails residents and NC Square development. This is what was previously proposed, again, with the townhome at the minimum setback line, but again, even in this scenario, that preserve is dense, mature vegetation, and creates a significant buffer. And the last three slides I have are just massing views taken at eye level. This is from Immokalee Road looking towards the NC Square site. This is looking towards the area of the northern preserve. You can see really no development here. This is taken from the entrance drive looking east towards that four-story proposed building. Again, in this view you cannot see that building at all. And these were prepared by an architect. And then this is taken from Jacaranda Drive looking north and, again, absolutely no views of the NC Square development. And that concludes our presentation, and we are happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Question on the entrance. Is that a right-in, right-out, or is that a full opening? MS. HARRELSON: I'm going to let Norm come up for that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is that Norm? MS. HARRELSON: Yes, Norm. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know that's typically one of the major concerns. And I know Norm has probably looked at this, but we'll have him put it on the record. Norm, my question was with the entrance off of Immokalee, that's a right-in, right-out? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. There's going to be two entrances. One will be just a right-in, right-out, the first one, for the community, and then the other is currently -- Catawba is a full, but it's going to be directionalized by the county. It's going to be -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So I could come out of that and turn left, or would I have to go right and then do a U-turn at the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- a U-turn at Twin Eagles? MR. TREBILCOCK: Let me see. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Not that far? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. Excuse me. They're to the west of us. Valencia is opposite Twin Eagles. So you would come in right-in, right-out to the site here, and then Catawba is here. Currently there's a full opening. February 20,2025 Page 13 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There is a full opening? MR. TREBILCOCK: That's going to be directionalized, though. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It will be signal -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. No, no. Directionalized. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Directional. MR. TREBILCOCK: No signal, because you've got the signal here at Valencia that was built, and so it would be too close. So that will be directionalized. And so then folks coming out can weave over and do a U'ey at the directional median opening to come back to head west. And that's how they'd get their movements and stuff. But no direct out, left-out. And I'm sorry, for the record, Norman Trebilcock. We helped prepare the traffic study, yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And for the record, Norm, based on your professional expertise, you've determined that there is a significant reduction in the projected traffic due to the change that's being proposed? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can you state for the record what that -- what the reduction is? MR. TREBILCOCK: So the reduction is -- let me pull that -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know Rich stated it, but you're the professional engineer, and I would like for you to -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. So as Jessica had pointed out, the existing trip cap is the 463 in the a.m. and 467 in the p.m., that's the peak-hour two-way, and it will be reduced to 226 and 267. So that's a pretty significant reduction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that's primarily because of the reduction of the commercial? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, and the daycare. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the daycare. MR. TREBILCOCK: And the daycare. That's a pretty peak use, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't see any questions from my fellow commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to add, just for the record, I think what you're seeing with regard to the approval of these mixed-income apartment complexes, as more and more units are coming on the market, you are seeing that supply and demand is the basic economic concept. Rents are actually starting to come down on both market -- on the market-rate units, which is -- is an important concept, so -- and what I want to -- if you look at the PUD, the median income at the 100 percent category for a family of one is $73,100, and for a family of four it's $104,000. So that's -- those are rents that are less than market rate, but the rents that are allowed today under the table for a one-bedroom at the 100 percent category is $1,958, at the 100 percent category, and at the 80 percent category is $1,566 for a one-bedroom apartment. So what that's serving, obviously, is nurses, firefighters, sheriff's deputies, you know, the people that we've been -- as you all know, we've been working to try to provide housing for. At every neighborhood information meeting I go to, when you say the word "affordable housing," it connotes something that people are familiar with up north, and I think it's very important that the community knows that this is not what is being built in Collier County, and it's not being built on this site. So the concerns and comments about somehow we're going to negatively impact property values by what we're constructing is factually not supported by the Property Appraiser's annual appraisals of property. So I wanted to close by saying the program is beginning to work as we're building more and more apartments in Collier County. Rents are coming down, and we are actually filling up these units pretty quickly with the income-restricted units. And we're not allowed to put February 20,2025 Page 14 of 60 market-rate people in these income-restricted units. They -- at no point can we put someone who doesn't make the income levels in these units. They will remain vacant until we find qualified individuals or families to live in these units. With that, that's our presentation. We're available to answer any questions you may have. And other than that we'll, I guess, turn it over to staff and ask if -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask -- we received numerous emails on this, and I'm going to cover the five areas that -- they were all pretty much the same emails. You already covered -- you already stated on the record the values -- the impact on values on Valencia Trails, so you stated that on the record. Noise and light discipline. I think Jessica covered that. Impact on overall safety and privacy. What -- what -- I know we're going to -- I would hope that we're going to hear that from the public -- but you will have a chance to rebut. But your comments on that now, please, so that that at least can be understood by those who are going to speak. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I would say is this is the before plan that had units 30 feet from their eastern property line -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and units closer to their northern property line. What we're proposing are significantly further enhanced setbacks on the east. And remember, on the east, there are no units. It's what they see when they're driving to and from their homes. And from this -- their northern boundary and our southern boundary, again, when Jessica said 400 feet, she meant 400 feet from a preserve that's 230 feet-wide, a dense preserve, with another 100-foot setback before you get to our building. So from a -- from a safety standpoint, it's, I think -- and quality of life standpoint, I think it's an enhancement. We've shown you the visuals of what you're going to see. And maybe they're going to see the top of a roof as they're driving in, but they were going to see a top of the roof when they were driving in anyway based upon the original setback. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The other issue was traffic flow, which Norm already covered. It's a significant reduction in what was being proposed. The other -- last one they stated of the five that mostly they covered was the impact and strain on fire and sheriff's department. I'm not sure what they were referring to, but this has already gone through staff review. And I'll ask staff when they present, but there's been no objections based on the ability -- in the AUIR and the capacity to cover fire -- both fire and sheriff. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no issues with any of these, including schools. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Essential public services. MR. YOVANOVICH: Schools, fire, Sheriff. There's no impact -- negative impact to any of the essential services in Collier County. Let me rephrase that. No negative impact to the quality of the service. Obviously, when you put one residence on there, there's an impact. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The other most significant impact was the discussion of a change from a townhome now to a rental building of family units. MR. YOVANOVICH: The concern -- the change was from for sale -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to a rental. And I think it's important when you see what those rents are in that -- you know, I was looking at that table, and, you know, my daughter's a vet assistant in Collier County. She probably makes $40,000 a year, which I -- it was more than I made when I first started working at the county. It's a good -- it's a good living, but that's at the 50 percent income threshold. So people like my daughter, she's not -- she's not living by herself. She's going to have to live with two or three roommates, which is okay, but that is -- that is what we're going to do is get these people who are here that are actually helping make our lives better by providing services that we need. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I don't see any commissioners asking any questions, February 20,2025 Page 15 of 60 so we'll go to staff presentation. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director, and I will give an overview of the staff's perspective. This has been reviewed by all of the infrastructure providers, as we were discussing, related to capacity within the system, and we've identified that none -- as part of the rezoning, you go through a courtesy concurrency review, the actual review, the actual application of concurrency, to ensure that there's trips on the road to ensure that there's desks that are available within schools, sufficient capacity within your EMS, within your sheriff, within your fire. That's performed, though, at the Site Development Plan or the plat stage. So that -- the actual application of concurrency will have to be -- will have to go -- this project will have to go through it when it's going through the platting and the SDP. So it's another check safe that's provided for within the system. But here at the zoning stage, we have not identified any issues with any provision of infrastructure. When we first received this petition, we were struggling with some of the concerns related to compatibility. We went back and forth with the applicant. We finally settled upon a -- we were suggesting 195. We finally settled upon 205. And the reason why, I think, that we were able to find a comfort level was the increase of the setbacks from the western boundary as well as to the southern boundary. And I think from the line of sight, you can see that the impact -- the visual impact will be greatly reduced by this -- the proposed amendments. Also, we also know that every project that we've heard within this Immokalee corridor, the concern is traffic. And I understand at, you know, 4 to 7 in February and March, that traffic is pretty heavy. But there is capacity within the road -- within the road segments. Transportation reviewed it and signed off. If you have any questions in terms of the operational movements, I believe Norm covered them, but Mike can reaffirm with those. Those reasons, as well as the enhanced buffering that's being provided for, we think all those things meet the levels of compatibility. Ultimately, the TIS that's associated with it is almost a 50 percent reduction in traffic. So for all of those reasons, staff is supporting the petition. We would be here to answer any questions that you may have. But at the end of the day, we think that traffic concerns are one of the things we hear the most on this Immokalee corridor. One, we view this as a positive in terms of reduction in traffic and, two, we're looking forward to the opening. And maybe Mike can provide us a little bit of a better heads-up as to when the Vanderbilt Beach extension is going to be opened to the public, because there's estimation, I believe, from Ms. Scott, of 20 to 25 percent reduction of traffic on Immokalee when that facility does become open, and that's part of the Concurrency Management System. And that prospect's ongoing. So the capacity that's going to be available on Immokalee Road is already accounted for by the system by the way that our rules are incorporated. And so for that -- that's one of the reasons why, from a transportation standpoint, that Transportation was able to sign off. So any other questions that you may have on any of the issues we spoke about. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I have one for Mike. When you just touched on Vanderbilt, when you pull -- when you pull an aerial, it looks Valencia Trails goes pretty much all the way back to Vanderbilt, correct? MR. BOSI: I don't believe it connects into Vanderbilt, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It looks like there's a trail there. Maybe Mike can figure that out. But I can see on the aerial, or whatever Google Earth had at one point in time, it looks like there is a southern extension of that property out to -- MR. TREBILCOCK: It will connect to -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It will connect to Vanderbilt? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. February 20,2025 Page 16 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's on Windamere Trail, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yep. That's what I was looking at. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any other -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Mike, do we know how many units are in Valencia Trails, how many total units, or Rich, do you know? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know -- I don't know the exact number, but I want -- I want to say it's north of 700, correct? It's almost 800. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: 838. MR. YOVANOVICH: 838. I know it was in one of the letters. I just -- I just didn't remember the exact number. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Rich, since you're up there, and you stated for the record, as far as the recreational facilities, there will be a clubhouse but no racquetball courts or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. One of the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Those other events. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. One of the comments -- yeah, one of the -- there will be a pool. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: A pool, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: But one of the things we hear quite frequently is that, you know, apparently pickleball is a little noisy, so -- and they were concerned about basketball courts, and they were also concerned about "Tennis could create some outdoor noise," so we eliminated those. We're from prohibited those uses. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Although your neighbor can have them. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, if you've been -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Your neighbor can have pickleball and tennis. MR. YOVANOVICH: They can have all those things, and basketball hoops and all that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. Got it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, we will go to the registered speakers. And I would ask as the speakers -- and as we identify the speakers, we'll try and use both podiums so we can keep the flow going. I'm going to try and keep these at least no more than five minutes but I prefer about three minutes. And I would just caution the public, you can certainly provide us your thoughts, but I only caution in regards to repeating the same information is -- you know, it's your prerogative, but it's not really going to help the situation any. So how many speakers do we have again? You said 20? Twenty-one? MS. EOFF: We have, it appears to be, roughly 12 in-person, and we have an additional two Zoom speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You have two online? MS. EOFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. So can we start with the public speakers? MS. EOFF: Yes. Our first speaker is going to be Richard Dunning followed by Sue Hooker. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And Richard on one and Sue on the other. If you could prepare to -- well, since you're right there, you can follow. Go ahead. You're right there, yes. MR. DUNNING: I must have got the short straw to be the first guy up. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There you go. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Have you been sworn in, sir? MR. DUNNING: I have. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay, good. February 20,2025 Page 17 of 60 MR. DUNNING: Do you want me to do it again? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. MR. DUNNING: Good morning. My name is Rick Dunning. I appreciate the opportunity. I spoke briefly at the last one just for some questions. I'm a resident of Valencia Trails. I live at 11362 Jacaranda Way. I appreciate, I want to say up front, the staff support. I've asked a lot of questions of your staff, and they've been very responsive. Obviously, I'm here to speak about the NC Square development. I'm not opposed to development. In fact, when my wife and I first acquired our property back in 2021, we did the due diligence, talked to your staff, and tried to understand about NC Square. We knew that there was going to be some development there. I was surprised it hadn't happened. And I appreciate the question being asked by the other commissioner about why it hadn't, because until today, for remarks [sic] not known to your staff or ourselves, that project didn't go forward, and that was a decision, a commercial decision, that we've heard that they made. Our concerns were, had that been built before 838 homes had been built and considerable population and taxpayers -- and I'm a voting person here in Florida for the last five years -- this wouldn't -- we wouldn't be here because we would have all moved in knowing that there was already preexisting development, but that did not happen. And now, you know, we want to get a bite at that apple, and I think that's what many of my community members are going to be asking today. It did not seem, once the -- our project actually, obviously, has preceded this proposed project -- that it was not compatible for many of the reasons that have been at least addressed in some part by the -- by the proposed developer. The fact that it's not -- it was not commercially viable, that's kind of their problem, not ours. And now they're wishing to fit that into that project to make it commercially viable. My principal objection were the setbacks, that there is existing vegetation there, some of which has been at least proposed to be amended. I'd be interested to see more. And I'd point out that up until February 1st, we did not have an HOA that was run by our community, and that's just recently happened. I believe there's some people from the HOA here. But we've not had a consolidated approach and another opportunity to give public input into some of the changes that have been made. After all of this, one of my principal concerns is -- and we talked to your staff -- there has been a reduction in projected traffic, but as a fact, anything built there is going to increase the existing traffic that is present on Immokalee Road, and I'd ask that you take that into consideration. The fact that it's a reduction from projections is of little, you know, consequence to us. There's still going to be a considerable increase. But here's one that's very interesting that's come through this. The original project even -- not the original. The proposed amendment, even though the documents talk about decreases and reductions, the fact is that the overall square footage of those -- of that project was going to considerably be increased. I've got the numbers, but I'm sure you have them as well, from the original project. Now, we've talked about the density, and so I asked the question of your staff: "So you're reducing the number of doors, but is there a limit to the square footage of those doors?" And the answer was no. So I would ask a question today: What is the proposed square footage of the -- of those -- of those units? You've reduced the number of doors, but have you, in fact, reduced the square footage of those -- of that project? And I'd be interested to know that. So I appreciate the opportunity. I know others have much to say. I don't want to be redundant. And I thank you for the opportunity to address you today. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Dunning, I've got to just ask again, you would prefer they February 20,2025 Page 18 of 60 build the existing project as zoned now even considering the locations of where the buildings were? MR. DUNNING: My preference would be that it would be a habitat, but I don't -- but that ship's sailed. And my point is that there was already a project that had been approved. It was pointed out here by you-all. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. DUNNING: And they had every opportunity to do that and did not. And now, after we've now had, you know, considerable development, pay lots of taxes, and we're saying, "Wait a second. Now you want to come back and amend it?" Remember, the original proposed amendment was for a significant increase in the original project. So they've reduced the amendment, but it's still larger than the original project. So I think that's worth noting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I -- I really didn't hear an answer to the question, so I -- MR. DUNNING: What was your -- what was your question? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My question was, you would prefer to have the buildings located as proposed, as originally proposed under the current zoning? MR. DUNNING: The answer's no, I would not prefer that, but I don't have a -- but I'm -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But it's already been approved -- MR. DUNNING: I agree with you. That's what I said. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and there's nothing we can do to stop them from developing under the current development pattern. MR. DUNNING: They're free to do that. We can't stop it. I agree with you on that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thanks. MR. DUNNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MS. HOOKER: Sure. Good morning. My name is Sue Hooker, and I'm a full-time resident of Valencia Trails. My husband and I moved here four years ago after visiting Naples for 30-some years on vacation. If it weren't for our children and grandchildren in the area and our fabulous Valencia Trails community, we might be re-thinking that move. The rate at which Naples is becoming a concrete jungle versus the beautiful place we used to visit is alarming. Not a day goes by that I turn on Immokalee Road that I [sic] wonder if I'm going to see an accident, someone killed, a dump truck blowing through a red light, an impatient person weaving in and out of traffic, or worse, for me or my family or my friends to be involved in some horrific accident. The expansion of NC Square is nothing more than a money grab and perhaps a political push. It does nothing more than pollute our beautiful area with concrete, crime, noise, more traffic, a strain on our police and fire systems, and a devaluation of our properties. Please consider doing what is right and denying the proposed expansion of unneeded four-story, low-income rental apartments outside the gates of our beautiful community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Ms. Hooker, may I ask you a question? What do you mean by crime? Where is that coming from? MS. HOOKER: Well, low-income housing is going to bring a different -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do you consider $73,000 a year low income? MS. HOOKER: Not for Naples, no. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do you consider $104,000 a year low income? MS. HOOKER: No, but I also -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Because that's -- MS. HOOKER: I also know that there are apartments down the street that are waving signs out in the street because they can't rent them all. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree with you. MS. HOOKER: How many apartments do we need? February 20,2025 Page 19 of 60 COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I do agree with you on that, Ms. Hooker, but I just -- MS. HOOKER: You know, I have no problem providing a home -- you know, housing for lower income people at all. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And I understand what you mean by that. MS. HOOKER: But this is not why we built our homes in that place. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And I understand what you mean by the concrete jungle. MS. HOOKER: And as far as the traffic, you know, this proposed -- proposal may decrease traffic, but now they're talking about moving the daycare just a little bit further west of ours, so that still is traffic, in addition to the new school, Bear Creek, that's right outside our -- left of our gate. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree with you on that. Unfortunately, the one thing we can't do is tell people what to do with their property. So I understand your comment about the concrete jungle. I agree with it wholeheartedly, but that would kind of be the same thing that somebody would say about Valencia Trails when that was built because that whole wooded area was leveled to be built where you're at now. But that property was allowed to do that because that's what they're allowed to do on their land. So when Mr. Yovanovich gets up and goes over what they originally were approved for, which is more than what they have now, that's where it gets kind of tedious to try to wade through. So I understand your comments and I respect them, and I thank you for saying them, but I also want to have an open view here that we can't stop them from building something there. MS. HOOKER: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And as -- MS. HOOKER: I agree. But to say that it's going to reduce traffic, that is not true. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm right there -- I'm right there with you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. HOOKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MS. EOFF: Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is going to be Dave Hooker, followed by Henry Rome. MR. HOOKER: Good morning, everybody. I'll try to be brief. First of all, I am not a lawyer, but thank you for listening. My name is Dave Hooker. I'm a full-time resident at Valencia Trails. And my theme today is a term called "bait and switch." And for the people that might not be familiar with that term, it's a fraudulent tactic that a deceitful party lures another party into agreement with one offer but then offers something completely different, trying to complete a deal, and that's why we're here today and asking for your understanding and help. When we purchased our single-family homes, we were shown plans adjacent to the property, which it had 129 occupied units, and now it's a bait and switch, and now we have 249 rental units. Number 2, the height which we all talked about went from 42 feet, bait and switch; now it's 62 feet. And the daycare center facility and the homeowners were going to be there at the -- at the facility, and now we just very short-term renters and an amplified outside bar possibly. Now, I have a number of concerns, and I hope you-all do, too, and that's pollution. We talked about light pollution, sound pollution, just eyesore pollution. But traffic -- you know, how much more can Immokalee take? Because the daycare center's just going to be shifted, so we'll still have people having problems with traffic. There will be a strain on law enforcement. Just with more people, you have more February 20,2025 Page 20 of 60 accidents, possibly more crime. And there will be a strain on the fire department. So me personally, I'm all for capitalism. I'm all for affordable housing. I'm all for helping Collier County to grow responsibly. But however, with these people here from Valencia Trails -- and we're here today -- we're asking you to please understand -- and ask for your help to look out for the small guy. We're individual homeowners. We don't like bait and switch. And, quite frankly, it's just common sense. And let your heart not let this plan move forward. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Hooker, can you clarify, you said possibly an outdoor bar. Do you -- where did this come up that there was going to be an outdoor bar? All I know of is a recreational center and a pool. MR. HOOKER: Well, right. It could be that, but they said the noise with TVs outside. So I'm just concerned that there might be just sound, sound pollution. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Pretty good distance away from where -- the location of the recreation center. I hear you. Now, you said bait and switch with the daycare center. It's going to be shifted. I know nothing about a daycare center be shifted. I just heard that from the previous speaker, but there's nothing in front of us saying that -- they've eliminated the daycare center. I don't know anything about another daycare center. MR. HOOKER: In front of the -- what's the name of the -- Naples Classical Academy. They're going to put, on the plan -- and maybe you haven't seen it yet -- but put a daycare center in front of that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And what does that have to do with this petition? MR. HOOKER: Because of traffic. So the traffic might not come from this area. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. HOOKER: But it just -- you're just shifting it down, so you're going to add more traffic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, I guess we'll deal with that if they have to come in and ask us -- is that a future petition we're going to be dealing with? MR. BOSI: Maybe. I don't -- I'm not aware of that particular change. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anyways. We heard you. As far as the daycare center, all I know, in this petition it's being eliminated, which is a significant reduction in what is the impact of traffic based on the original development. So I can't take into consideration -- and you put it on the record, but there's nothing in front of us stating -- in regards to a future daycare center somewhere off of Immokalee, but I appreciate the information. MR. HOOKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. ROME: Yes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Henry Rome. I live at 11387 Jacaranda Drive with my wife Lena. She spoke here very briefly a month ago when this matter first came up, and she talked about the traffic. I know we've talked about traffic a lot. I'm a layperson, so when you're talking about all these figures and studies and everything, it's kind of over my head. But sometimes figures are a little different than reality. And I know that we've talked about traffic. If you're going to be coming out of this new project, people are going to be trying to swerve over to the left as soon as they can to make that U-turn, and that's when these problems occur. I mean, it's going to be a huge problem, I think. There was some mention made of an outdoor restaurant. That was actually mentioned during the public hearing. So they were talking about amplified music at an outdoor restaurant. So I think that there are plans for an outdoor restaurant there. Perhaps -- no more amplified music, as I understand. And even though there is a buffer, we all know that sound travels at night. Now, my February 20,2025 Page 21 of 60 property is right on the edge of this area, so I'm someone who's going to be affected the most. I have a pool in the back, a lanai. Like everybody else, I moved down here to enjoy the evenings. Even with outdoor televisions, which are now going to still be allowed, I think you're still going to hear noise. And I don't want to be redundant with a lot of these issues that have already been presented to you. But this whole presentation now with the line of sight and where the units are going to be located, I wish I had seen that before I came here this morning. This is the first time I saw this. So I think a lot of people have addressed the preexisting request for amendment without knowing really what they're doing here. So I really haven't had a chance to look at this carefully at all. One other comment I'd like to make, everyone talks about affordable housing for our first responders, for teachers, firefighters, those types of people. The plan that's in effect right now provides for 143 or 147 owned townhouses 100 percent affordable. It seems to me if you really want to help people get the American dream or whatever, why try to force them into apartments as opposed to being able to buy a place? I would prefer to have people buy as opposed to rent, number one, because they're actually -- they're actually making -- they're earning something. They've got something. But also I think people who -- maybe I'm incorrectly categorizing people -- but I think if you own something, you take care of it and are a little bit more concerned about your neighborhood as opposed to renters. And I may be castigated for saying that, but that's just my feeling. But I think if you really want to do something for people, give them the opportunity to own, to really become permanent residents here as opposed to transient. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. MR. ROME: Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a couple questions. The challenge is that they don't have down payments, and that's why you're getting to more rentals is nobody has 10, 20, whatever you've got to have to put down. So that's -- that's why you're not -- you're seeing more rentals. MR. ROME: I understand that, but -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. ROME: -- still you have to give them that opportunity. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Another question. You're in Valencia Trails. Do you have pickleball courts? MR. ROME: We have pickleball courts at the clubhouse. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you have a pool? MR. ROME: Yes, and I have my own pool in the back. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you have a restaurant? MR. ROME: There is a restaurant. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And is it noisy? MR. ROME: Well, it's -- first of all, it's a small restaurant. It's not a public -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I doubt this one's going to be a lot bigger than yours. MR. ROME: I think so. No, I think it's going to be bigger because -- well, it's my understanding -- although I haven't seen this new proposed layout that's been presented here this morning. My understanding is that the proposed restaurant will be in the commercial side, not over on -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Right. MR. ROME: So it's going -- I think it's going to be -- I'm just assuming it's going to be much larger than our very small restaurant. And that leads me to my next -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Farther away. MR. ROME: I'm sorry. What? COMMISSIONER SHEA: But father away, significantly farther away than your own. February 20,2025 Page 22 of 60 MR. ROME: No, I don't -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm just making an observation that, you know, what you don't want them to have you have. And a lot of your facilities are closer to your homes than their facilities will be. So it's just an observation. MR. ROME: That will be much closer -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. ROME: -- to me than their restaurant. And may I ask how many of you -- or have any of you actually been into Valencia Trails? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: (Raises hand.) MR. ROME: Okay. So let the record reflect Mr. Shea and Mr. Schmitt indicated that they have been there. And have you actually walked down Jacaranda Drive? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: (Shakes head.) MR. ROME: Okay. Let the record reflect that neither one has indicated that they've walked down Jacaranda Drive. Anyway, I would hope, as Mr. Hooker just said, that as a -- my wife and I, as full-time permanent residents, registered voters, that we would be given the same consideration as the developers. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What would you like them to do with that land? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Donate it back. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, yeah, that's what everybody wanted when you came in with your development was to leave it as -- and that's the challenge we face. This is a long-term Growth Management Plan that the county has to kind of control growth, control infrastructure in areas that are less detrimental, and those are kind of aspirational plans that we plan everything towards. MR. ROME: No, I understand that. I understand that also. But it seems that, as the previous speaker, Mrs. Hooker, mentioned, it seems like there's development -- there's apartments going up everywhere. I think there's apartments going up just east of Ventana. I know they're going up at the intersection of Orangetree or Immokalee and Randall and that big corner development. I don't know if there's enough people coming in, because as -- I've seen the people with the signs also. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We could have somebody from the housing office come and talk. And I know Paul sits on the housing -- Affordable Housing Committee. I would have to say, probably categorically, that the affordable housing, once they're on the market, they go within 48 hours. Within maybe a week, they're gone. If there's somebody standing out with a sign -- outside with a sign, those are typically at the market rate. They're trying to fill the market-rate units. Because the affordable housing units go very, very quickly, and that's the kind of feedback we hear, that they go within days of being on the market. Okay. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. MS. EOFF: Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Dorothy Pavlica, and she's being ceded time by Natalie Santosiero. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Natalie, could you raise your hand, please. (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. And who else? Just one? MS. EOFF: Just one for her. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And was Dorothy -- MS. PAVLICA: I'm Dorothy Pavlica, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My home is in Valencia Trails. I'm 11370 Jacaranda Drive. February 20,2025 Page 23 of 60 Now, I had a whole speech prepared, but I will not -- I will just touch on several things that are of super concern to me. In the beginning, this -- the first plan was passed in April 2021, correct? I mean, the first rezoning plan was passed in April 2021? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. PAVLICA: And my concern is that since nothing has been built as of yet on the subject property in question, why wasn't the zoning postponed until -- by Valencia Trails was, let's say, 85 percent complete the way it is now where we could have had an input? Because nothing has been built since April 2021. One of my second concerns is this map, okay. Nobody has mentioned what's -- what this property adjacent to the property in question is zoned. Speaking to one of your planners -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike, can you put that on the overhead -- MS. PAVLICA: He said -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- her map. I have no idea where she's talking about. MS. PAVLICA: -- there's a 24-acre parcel. Thank you. There's a 24-acre parcel here, okay. Has that been rezoned along with the property in question to -- was that zoned -- rezoned at the same time as the property in question was rezoned? Because the planner that I spoke to said it had been rezoned. Now -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The property, I'm assuming, is RMFU, which is the zoning. Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is a zoning classification, but I don't know of anything identified for that property yet. MR. BOSI: And I believe what she's asking about is the commercial part of the rezoning. Because this is -- this is the -- this is the PUD master plan -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- that she's showing on here. And which area -- can you point to this? Not -- we can't see the screen. Can you point to this? MS. PAVLICA: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That piece of property. That's Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. Somebody could come in for a zoning tomorrow. MS. PAVLICA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It is -- it is -- designated zoning is -- as classified back in 2002 as Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is allowed to be developed, but there's no specific plans. So, yes, it could be developed. It could be a housing project come in tomorrow. It could be a commercial. It's eligible under the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District development criteria. MS. PAVLICA: So that property could be zoned commercial, and there's nothing that Valencia Trails could do? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You could -- you could -- and it would come before a public hearing, because it -- they could develop it today under the existing Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District criteria, and they can put single-family homes in there, and they can put multifamily as long as they're within the criteria as defined in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. That was a zoning classification that was passed almost 20 years ago when it was -- we had the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and the eastern lands overlay. So to answer your question, yes, it could be zoned. It could be developed today. I don't -- I would have to turn to staff as to what criteria they would have to abide by. But in most cases, many developers who come in today ask for either deviations or other types of a planning process under the PUD, Planned Unit Development, and that would go through the public-hearing process. MS. PAVLICA: Okay. Once this type of rezoning is approved, it sets a precedent for more high-density developments to follow, further altering the character of a neighborhood. When the -- when the 24-acre parcel was rezoned, as I had said, I was told that the other parcel, the parcel that I'm questioning, had also been rezoned. February 20,2025 Page 24 of 60 So this is -- there was a tendency for there to be a lot of commercial development because, obviously, at the -- at this present time, commercial land is much more valuable than land zoned residential. It's substantially more. Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That may not be true, and -- but anyways, I'm not up here to debate that. You could continue, please. MS. PAVLICA: Okay. Now, the planner, Jessica, said that we would not be able to see the tops of the roofs. Well, according to this latest plan from petitioner, the commercial height is 35 feet, and then -- but they can go to 42. That is the height of a telephone pole, okay. The residential is 50 feet, but they can go to 60 or 62. Now, how many stories are these rental units going to be? If you look at the rental at The Pearl at Founders Square, that is four stories of tenants, and then there's another five feet or so to the roof. Now, if something -- if petitioner is putting up a building that tall, there's no way we don't see it at Valencia Trails. I live across, so I would see it, and it's very concerning. And while people have mentioned in planning that there's no effect on property values, that is not -- I don't think that is true. I looked up some statistics, and your values go down 10 to 15 percent when it abuts, quote, rental housing and commercial. So in no way does this enhance our property values. This area has also been traditionally residential. Across from us is Twin Eagles. And then we have, a little ways down -- way down, going west, is the Quarry. A little further west is Heritage Country Club, which is across the road, and that suggests an expectation of continuity for single-family or owner-occupied residences. On our side, the single-family homes/developments, such as Ventana Place, Bent Creek Reserve, and Morada. Most rentals are built in a commercial space like Founders Square where residents have easy access to restaurants, and there's a hardware store in there, and across the street is Publix. So a mile from us are all the amenities you could want. And as this has been a traditionally residential area, I feel petitioner's proposal would deeply affect the residential nature of single-family owner occupied. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask you to wrap up, please? You have been some time. MS. PAVLICA: Sure. Okay. There's been a change in the management entity. HAA, the proposed management entity, was incorporated on February 11th, 2022. What experience does HAA have in directing the construction of an MPDU [sic]? The "change in management" post states, "The original rezoning decision raises questions about the continuity and consistency of the development plans." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. PAVLICA: Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll ask staff to address the compatibility issue. The question has already been reviewed by staff, and if you could address briefly the compatibility issue. MR. BOSI: Yes. When -- the Board of County Commissioners, April of 2022 they adopted a provision within to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District that said if a project is providing affordable housing, you're eligible up to 12.2 units an acre. Without affordable housing, you're only eligible for one unit an acre. So the Board of County Commissioners, at the Growth Management Plan -- at the Growth Management Plan stage, have made a determination that 12.2 can be compatible with one unit an acre. Now, that's not the case that we have here. This is 8.4 units an acre, and the 850 units that are -- that are within Valencia Trails, I think it pencils out to three or four units an acre. So it is a much closer -- it's a much closer relationship than what the Board of County Commissioners adopted at the GMP. So our Growth Management Plan actually promotes this arrangement of single-family residential development next to multifamily development. And what I also would say is when we adopted the GMP amendment for the Rural Fringe February 20,2025 Page 25 of 60 Mixed-Use District in 2022, it specifically said that stand-alone commercial uses can be developed specifically if you have an affordable housing component, because we want the goods and services and the economic opportunities to be in closer proximity towards where a working -- a working-class environment is provided for. So for all those reasons, that is why staff has been able to reach a determination of compatibility for this project to where it sits. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. How many more speakers do we have? Because we're going to be taking a break soon. MS. EOFF: Mr. Chairman, we have one final speaker who is being ceded time by four. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: By four? MS. EOFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I think we'll take our break now, and we'll have the speakers after the break. So we'll break now and take a -- we'll reconvene at 10:45. (A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Could I ask everyone to take their seats. We would like to resume the meeting. And to have a correction, we do have four speakers remaining; is that correct? MS. EOFF: Yes, that is correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So we could -- could we continue with the public speakers, please. MS. EOFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I assume those public speakers have already taken the oath. If not, we will re-administer the oath. Next public speaker. MS. EOFF: The next public speaker is going to be Donna Cascardo, followed by Marian Riordan. MS. CASCARDO: Good afternoon, I should say, right now. Thank you for giving -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's still morning. MS. CASCARDO: -- me the opportunity to speak. My name is Donna Cascardo. I'm a full-time homeowner, my husband and I, at Valencia Trails. We purchased our beautiful home in this beautiful community two years ago. I appreciate all of the information that all of you have provided, and I thank you for that. However, I do have to say that I am in full supportive of all of our Valencia family that's here today and those that were unable to make it and all of -- everything, their testament and everything that they have said. So I'm backing that up. I don't want to repeat it, but I do want to say I do believe that there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that have been portrayed today, and on behalf of what's been presented. Everything looks beautiful, and it seems very, you know, "Oh, we've got a great plan in place." I'm shaking -- I don't know why -- because there's so much I want to say. But when you come down to our community and you come down during the busiest time -- and throughout Immokalee Road, the traffic is horrendous. Nobody has brought up the fatalities, the numerous fatalities right outside of our development that have occurred time and time again. As far as safety vehicles, emergency vehicles, it's almost impossible for them to get into our community now. We live in a 55-and-older community. We all worked hard our whole lives, as everybody else has. Okay. We bought into this development with quality of life, okay, and high standards. And when people, I feel -- and no -- maybe I shouldn't say this, but in a very condescending way, some of the feedback on behalf of some of you regarding our amenities is really unfair. Everybody should be entitled to amenities wherever they live, whether it's rentals or not, okay. February 20,2025 Page 26 of 60 But in our community, we spent a lot of money, and we pay a lot of, you know, HOA fees, and we're going to continue to do so. We have high standards. We want quality of life for ourselves and for our family. We're worried about our safety. And the concern, crimes, when you talk about rentals, no, we're not looking down on rentals. We don't want it right next door to us. Everybody deserves to have a place to live. I live on Jacaranda, 11391 Jacaranda Drive, so my home butts up right against the beautiful preserve. We were never told -- and this is no fault of yours -- by GL that they were going to build in that development. So we were living on a preserve -- we're living on a preserve. We have the beauty, the peace, the serenity, okay, the privacy, okay. The sounds that's going to come from a rental development, a commercial development, okay, with pool areas, okay, that people are going to be swimming, noise, televisions. When there's rentals, people do not care as much as they do as if you purchase a home. We take pride in our homes. Every single person in our development puts their heart and soul and their hard-working efforts that they did -- you know, worked through the years to live in this community, to have -- we're grateful to be part of this, okay. And now to have people coming in, they're not going to care, okay. How do you say that you want it for low- or medium-income folks coming in, but you want to specify we want nurses, we want firefighters? How do you solicit people to come into that saying, "These are the people we want"? It's open to anybody. You can't segregate. You can't say, "This is for firefighters or nurses or teachers," okay. Like my Valencia Trails people have said, our neighbors -- we see them standing with signs all along Immokalee Road, "Free rental apartments, two months, three months. Come in." They're dancing up and down. You're driving. There's so many empty apartments. Why do they have to do low-income housing or rental apartments? If you made it a beautiful little townhouse -- first of all, we didn't want anything. I would -- if it could be vacant and beautiful preserve like we have and encourage and applaud and welcome the wildlife that's there right now and keep it there. I have reached out personally to the U.S. Army of Corps [sic] and -- just to see what we could do about the, you know, wildlife. We're concerned about that. But that being said, we're more concerned about our safety, the security, you know, with the rental apartments, and they're going to have the -- a pool, a pool area. Who's going to modify or watch the sound barriers when they're playing music? Rentals could be one family. It could be five families. Rental people come and go, okay. That's not what we want, okay. Now, Collier County, I know that they're promoting lots of growth within, and I guess that's throughout Florida. I came from New York, as if you can't tell, and I'm proud to say a proud New Yorker. But love being here. Quality of life. The beauty, okay. We've got a lot to offer. I go down to Ave Maria. There's all open land there, undeveloped land. Why don't they look to build it -- you know, if they're looking to build more apartments in that area where there's nothing there right now, do it there. Arthrex is a big manufacturing plant that they opened up over there. That's where I would put more housing, outside of Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask you to wrap up, please? We're at over four minutes. MS. CASCARDO: Yes. So I'm asking for your consideration, okay. It's safety. It's quality of life, okay. The low-income housing, rentals, it's something that we do not bid for, we do not want, okay. I'm totally opposed to it. I highly respect all of you, and I ask that you respect us as proud people who we are, okay. We're here in Florida, and we love it, and we've been given a great opportunity. And I ask you to take this into consideration and to do whatever you can and to move your planning elsewhere. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. February 20,2025 Page 27 of 60 All right. Next, please. MS. RIORDAN: Hi. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I just make a comment? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- I mean, Ave Maria is the way it is, and it doesn't have a lot open land. It's a lot of environmentally sensitive land around it, and that's why it's a planned community so you can't just -- you don't want to just move your development out into the environmentally sensitive areas, which is the majority of the land in the eastern part of the county. So it's planned that way. MS. CASCARDO: What about Oil Well, when you go down Oil Well? That's all undeveloped land. COMMISSIONER SHEA: There's a lot of environmentally -- it's part of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program, but we won't get into that. But there is a very detailed plan for development of that part of the county because it contains so much environmentally sensitive areas. MS. CASCARDO: How does that differentiate from our -- you know, the preserve area by us, if I may ask? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I need to clarify. It's not a preserve. You may think it's a preserve. There is a preserve section in that, but under the current zoning it's zoned for both commercial and residential. It's zoned NC Square, the zoning, and it's zoned already for development. So regardless of what you may -- or what you were told when you bought your house, at least that section has been zoned for over four years. Anyways. Next speaker. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, I agree with Ms. Cascardo because, from what I'm hearing is, when she bought her house it was advertised by GL Homes that that would be preserve. MS. CASCARDO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: We had a site map down that said it was preserve. That has nothing to do with this property owner that's here with this petition. That has to do with the company that sold you your home, which to me would be misleading information, because you can't tell somebody that it's a preserve unless it's actually cited as such with the county, which it never was. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So help us sue. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, I can't help you sue them. That's a nice comment, but I can't do it. So that is something you and your homeowners could take up against them on your own. But with this petition, they're leaving you three acres. That's 600 feet of woods that you're still going to have there in between the two. We've seen other petitions come in that have the minimum of a 30-foot setback. So I mean, I think they're working with you. I feel for you because in your original purchase they didn't either disclose to you that, "Hey, this property is actually zoned for commercial/residential use. It's not a preserve." They just put it onto a map and said "Preserve area," which gave you a false sense of reality. So I agree with you there, but I think you and your neighbors have a pretty good shot against -- against the developer for what's occurring here. So -- but I thank you for your comments. MS. CASCARDO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MS. RIORDAN: Hi. My name is Marian Riordan. Good afternoon. It's my understanding, reading all of Collier County's website, where my source of information is coming from, is that the housing is twofold. It's affordable housing and workforce February 20,2025 Page 28 of 60 housing. With the commitment list that I have seen for affordable housing, there are 94 new developments; 76 are already under the type of rental, which is 81 percent of the total. Obviously, when developers are changing their amendment, that number will go higher. Nineteen are, right now, slotted for owned and -- owned and occupied, and that would be NC Square's original 2021 proposal. There are 29,120 units, 12,074 of those are affordable. Collier County's original priorities for 2024 was 10,000 affordable units. As we've all seen with the economy, housing demand has slowed down tremendously. Right now on Zillow or Redfin, wherever you go, there are 1,536 rentals available today with 60 and 90 day on the market. Thirteen hundred of those are coming right from Naples. Another point of reference, The Pearl. We've heard some people talk about The Pearl at Founders Square. They're a 400-unit rental. Their rents are the same exact as we heard from the low and median income if the assumption is four people are in that household. Right now, for the last quarter, they have been marketing their property because they've been at 89 percent occupancy for the last year and a half. So they're offering two months free. They're 2.9 miles from Valencia Trails. Randall Curve apartments, which is slotted for 400 units, is going to be 1.1 mile away from Valencia Trails going east, and then Brightshore Village, which would be eight miles away, will be 2,000 units. The original proposal for owned townhomes seems the appropriate way to go. It fits into the Planning Commission's job to ensure compliance when it comes to zone height for residential and commercial, which is 35, as we heard a lot of people before speak to that they want to increase it to 50 with the option to 57. So that's concerning. The other piece of it is that when they're talking about the original 2021, the affordable housing, the 120, which it was slotted for, with a maximum of 128, was at the gap and moderate level. And if you're looking at if one person occupies that home, obviously that income is at, I believe, 89,000 to 100,000. The assumption that they're making with low and medium is that there's going to be four people in that. My concern with the new update that was proposed to you in June of 2022 is the eight-month rental. They politely talked about that they're trying to fill the workforce housing situation and in compliance with, especially with Collier County, with firefighters, police officers, government officials, nurses, service workers, but I don't know any of those people in that occupation -- which I have family members in those occupations -- that want an eight-month rental with the option for month to month. People do want stability. They want -- they want to contribute to the economy, and they want to build equity on their own. And when you are looking at what Collier County has currently, 19 percent are slotted for townhouses or owner -- owner occupied, I should say. So let me clarify. So we have erred on the side of offering a lot of options in rentals, but just two miles down from Valencia Trails, they can't fill those spots. So I'm concerned about the overdevelopment of rentals as the only option in Collier County, specifically Naples. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question. Do you think the reason they can't fill those slots is because they're at market rate and people can't afford that rate? MS. RIORDAN: So I had a very deep discussion not only with the managing board that took them over, Beitel Group, but also with The Pearl itself, and their -- their rentals start at $1,800. And if you look at what they're proposing -- and again, they keep talking about the higher end of if four people live there, then this would be -- it's the same exact rental in terms of the rental documents. Eight months is very concerning, then month to month. It begs, you know, for transient. February 20,2025 Page 29 of 60 It doesn't beg -- it doesn't beg for stability in our community. I did have one other question. I just saw my highlight. They did talk about buffers. And if you guys can clarify, that would be wonderful. I appreciate that in your new proposition that you want to put buffers, but I also see here that you've added in the ordinance, "There shall be no required building setbacks or buffer required from any internal property or tract line. The MPUD may include shared preserves, water management access, and other necessary infrastructure to achieve a uniform development." And then my last comment is that GL has made it clear that we are not a gated community. We are a community with a gate. So I think they felt that we were a gated community. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Public road. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh. Gotcha. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The public has access. I mean, it could be -- if it were -- a gated community -- if it was a gated community -- he asked what would be the difference? Typically, it's public road versus private. If it was a private road, that road would be maintained by the HOA. I don't know if that -- you have a CDD -- I'm not sure -- Community Development District. I don't know if you have one or not. MS. RIORDAN: We don't. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Thank you. MS. RIORDAN: I don't know if he was willing to answer the question about the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm willing to talk whenever you want me to. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I will ask that -- when you wrap up that you address the issue of buffers. That's a good question, and you could clarify the buffers and the other statement in regards to the setbacks. I know what she had asked, and you did cover that, because it's an internal boundary. But, Rich, if you could cover that. Next speakers, please. How many more do we have? Two more? MS. EOFF: Yes. We have two more with one of them being ceded time. Our next speaker is going to be Eugene Mueller, followed by Lisette Scott, and Lisette is being ceded time by Michele Agronin. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And Michele is here? (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. MUELLER: Good morning, everybody. My name is Eugene Mueller. I live at 11347 Jacaranda Drive, and my property butts up against the new development. I would like to state that, you know, in the 70 years I've been alive, I've been around the world four times. I've lived in five countries. In the United States, I've lived in several places. And the reason I bring this up is because, of all the places I've been, we moved to Naples here because it's one of the most beautiful cities we've ever seen. My wife and I moved here for that purpose. And it's beautiful because of its aesthetic to the eye, and I'll explain that here in a little bit. I appreciate the developers putting forward their ideas to try to make it better for us. There are some concerns, though, that -- one of them is traffic, and I would appreciate it maybe if you could speed up the development of -- I'm new here, so -- Vanderbilt -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vanderbilt. MR. MUELLER: Thank you -- Vanderbilt Beach Road so that when this project -- and I don't think we're going to stop it. It's probably going to go through. But it would be nice if it was open and developed before that even came to being. Also, there's been -- they brought up about security and noise. I would really appreciate it if, perhaps, you can build a bigger wall, because you've seen walls along the highways. One, it blocks out the noise from the traffic, which is a big help; two, it would be security, so people -- it would be a little harder to get over. That would really benefit the community, I think, a lot. The other thing that they brought up was the fact that we pay a lot of money to maintain February 20,2025 Page 30 of 60 our community. And again, if there is development, it would be nice if the managers of this property were held to the same value as we are so that they make sure that property stays at its value. There have been so many places that I've seen like this over time, seen them developed new, but yet after a short period of time they turn into ruin. You've got things hanging off the balconies. You've got, you know, whatever going on. It's not kept up to the standards because they have no skin in the game. So, you know, those three issues, if the developer would approach it and fix it, that would probably help considerably. Having Vanderbilt Beach Road in gives us two exits and entrances to the property, which would -- to me, would help tremendously. The other point that I want to bring up -- and this is my main point is the height of these buildings. As I've traveled around Valencia -- or excuse me -- Naples, I've noticed a couple things, and like other cities and properties, they do have buildings higher than three or four stories, even rentals -- apartments, but you'll notice they're all pretty much blocked together. It's not just one building, but you'll have several different developments there. They'll also -- you'll find these high-rise buildings near a commercial site, businesses, and so forth. And aesthetically, you look at them, they look like they belong there. But if they build a building higher than the trees to where it's four -- three, four, five stories, it's going to be the sore thumb sticking out of nowhere because there's not going to be any other buildings developed in that area because a lot of the properties have already been developed. So you're going to see one building sticking out of nowhere and nothing around it. If there was more development to go on and you've got a community of these tall buildings, that's probably another thing. But it would be nice to see it kept at tree level, and I believe they discussed this. They said that -- I don't know about -- I know that they mentioned the road -- the entrance. As far as my property goes, I don't know what I'm going to see. I think you stated that I won't see the top of this building; is that correct? But, you know, others probably will. The other thing, too, that I hope they address is if they do move into this place, there are a lot of dead trees back in that area. It would be nice if they took those down and fixed them as well so it looks a little bit more pleasing for us as a community. That's all I have to say, and -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. MUELLER: -- you guys should be great -- like the fact that this city is wonderful. We love every bit of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Next speaker, please, or already up there. MS. SCOTT: Hi. Lisette Scott from Valencia Trails. I also live on Jacaranda. Also, after the July 2024 meeting, I was head lead on putting together a petition effort for Valencia Trails. And on my agenda for today for speaking, I'll go over the petition letter, I'll go over the last exhibit that was provided through -- online through the Collier County city portal, which was dated November/December '24. If there was a recent one posted -- and I was talking to Parker Klopf during the break. I believe there was a recent one, but it was not yet posted as of today's meeting, before this meeting, so I did not get to review a copy of that. I'll also go over very briefly that SB -- the Senate Bill 328 and the LLA Act that was passed, and then I'll also touch on an article from Washington Post. Okay. So as of December 2024, we have about approximately 642 signatures from Valencia Trails, which is an over-45 [sic] community. We consist of over 838 single-family, single-story homes at the intersection of Immokalee and Majestic Trails, which is -- basically will be our front yard/backyard to where you're proposing to build. We're in opposition to the current changes or regulations for the development of NC Square Mixed Use MPUD. In other words, we understand that in April 2021 it was approved, rezoned for 129 townhomes, daycare, and commercial shops. We're okay with that because we February 20,2025 Page 31 of 60 know that was passed in April 2021. What we're opposing was the proposed changes to the NC square PUD. And, again, what I had was the 249 apartments. We, the undersigned current owners and residents of a 55-and-over single-family, single-story community express our strong opposition to the proposed changes in NC Square MPUD. We reject all proposed changes and would like to call out the following proposed modifications as absolute nos: No changes to the existing approvals. We advocate for maintaining existing NC Square MPUD that had already been approved for this property by Collier County. No changes to density and intensity. We oppose any increase in maximum intensity and density of dwelling units. No changes to commercial land use. The allowed square footage for gross floor area for the commercial land uses should remain unchanged. In other words, we were okay with a daycare. No changes to the number of residential units. We reject any change in the number of residential units approved for 120, not to exceed 129 townhomes. No transitions to rental units. We oppose transitioning from residential units known as townhomes to rental units known as apartments. No changes to building heights. We oppose any increase to the currently approved maximum height of 30 feet zoned for commercial and 40 feet zoned for residential. No increase should be allowed. No amplified outdoor music or TV sounds allowed. Any amplified sound is inappropriate for the existing adjacent single-family, single-level homes in Valencia Trails. Again, this was drafted last year. No changes to streetlights. Streetlights within proposed development should remain Dark Skies compliant with full cutoff shielding installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare. In the last exhibit that I reviewed, full cutoff shielding has been approved. In addition, we call for Collier County to consider additional requests by our Valencia Trails community members as follows: Landscape buffers. The proposed landscape buffers adjacent to Valencia Trails are unacceptable. The existing mature tree growth should be protected in the preserve area which backs up to Jacaranda. Thus, request -- thus, we are requesting a larger buffer to be increased to six acres. In addition, a larger buffer is needed on the west side of the proposed development to protect the entrance to Valencia Trails, which is already enhanced with a large water feature for aesthetic purposes. Barrier wall. We request a 10-foot sound privacy security barrier wall between the proposed development and Valencia Trails community on all adjacent property lines. Visibility. Buildings from the proposed development should not be visible from Valencia Trails property. Stormwater management. Ensure stormwater outfall engineering does not negatively impact Valencia Trails community. Request new gates for entries and exit. We request new iron gates to be built and paid for by the new owners/builders of the proposed development for the entries and exits of Valencia Trails community off Immokalee Road. At the time we drafted this, we were not aware that they were going to build the Vanderbilt Road extension and, therefore, in the meantime, our GL community has built a gate at -- a gate for the exit that leads to Vanderbilt. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Did you -- I'm sorry. Did you just say you want the developer to pay for iron gates for Valencia? MS. SCOTT: That is what we are proposing. We're throwing that in there. We put that in our petition letter. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Have you run that past them? MS. SCOTT: I'm assuming that -- prior to this meeting that you-all received a copy of our February 20,2025 Page 32 of 60 petition letter along with our 642 petition signatures. So I'm going to assume that the builders received the same package. If not, they can -- we can send them a copy of the petition letter. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: When reviewing the petition request by Valencia Trails community, we asked that the representatives of Collier County focus on the synergy of adjacent properties to maximize the value to the community at large while protecting the desirability and value of preexisting developments. Next I'm just going to go through and highlight some points that I reviewed in the exhibits that have been provided by the Collier County CV portal. Again -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're going for six minutes now. I'll give you one more. MS. SCOTT: I was allotted two speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I only saw one. MS. SCOTT: Michele Agronin ceded her time to me. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. SCOTT: So I have 10 minutes. So I'm going to try to whip through these. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Please. MS. SCOTT: Okay. And the last exhibit that I saw that was posted in the Collier County CV portal. Okay. For the commercial development standards, the minimum distance between -- between structures has been changed from 10 feet to half the sum of the building heights. Then, again, as Marian pointed out, there should be no required building setbacks or buffer required from any internal property or tract line. The MPUD may include shared preserves, water management access, and other necessary infrastructure to achieve a unified form of development. So in other words, to remove the buffer requirements from the commercial and residential standards, because the same note exists for the residential development standards. For the residential development standards, since you removed the townhouse from the latest proposed plan and from multifamily, all the original requirements were removed. So there's -- there's no requirements for buffers or feet for residential requirements. And I'd like to highlight two deviations that were put in place. And this was in the original plan. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05, so forth, preservation standards which requires that preserve areas be interconnected within the site to instead allow two separate preserve areas that are not connected. So in other words -- and I think the plan was removed. The preserve area -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That was a question I had asked, and it's in the plan. They have a north preserve and a south preserve. MS. SCOTT: Right. But -- so they're disconnecting them. So in other words, the way I interpret it, the front preserve that has been set aside with the back preserve, which is right by Jacaranda, those are the two places that are split up, so we'll be able to see -- on the west side of our entrance, which is east to the building, we'll be able to see the buildings. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The other option is they -- because of the archaeological site in the north preserve is the reason they're asking to split preserve. Their other option is to remove the southern preserve completely and make the entire north preserve one preserve. MS. SCOTT: Yeah, we wouldn't want that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I don't -- I wouldn't think so. MS. SCOTT: I just wanted to point out the deviations. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Yeah, we're aware of the deviation. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: And then on Exhibit F for the general 1A(i), I just want to highlight that this was struck out. And again, I don't have the latest exhibit that might have been submitted, but the removal of 122, maximum of 129 townhomes. So -- and the addition of 249 residential dwelling units per acre [sic]. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's 205. MS. SCOTT: Okay. And again, I apologize, because on the CV portal that was not February 20,2025 Page 33 of 60 posted, the latest plan that was submitted. Another thing that I wanted to point out on Section 1B, one entity herein, the managing entity, shall be responsible for the PUD monitoring until closing out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until closeout of PUD. When the PUD is closed out -- and at the end of that paragraph, when the PUD is closed out, the managing entity is no longer responsible for monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. So in other words, after the PUD is closed -- and this is how I interpret it -- then who is responsible for following all PUD commitments in the exhibit in the proposed changes? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Now, let me clarify that, because it's a good question. MS. SCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: PUD monitoring is a requirement as they develop, and that's part of -- the county staff monitors that, but the ordinance still stays in place. Any stipulations, any restrictions, any other criteria that were identified, during the public-hearing process or through the zoning, stay in place. And if they're not complied with, it is a code enforcement issue. Staff. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just to further that point, Chairman, the only way a PUD can be closed out is if our staff verifies that all of the commitments that are contained within that PUD have been satisfied before it is turned over to an HOA. So the homeowners association is not obligated for a commitment that the developer had made. So staff will not provide for a buildout -- closeout of a PUD until all those development commitments are provided for. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. And it -- but it still does not alleviate anybody from the responsibility to maintain the property to the standards that were identified in the ordinance. MS. SCOTT: Okay. So then how is that followed up? And that was -- that's just what I wanted to highlight, that -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. SCOTT: -- once it's closed out, the builder is no longer responsible, as he stated. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it probably wouldn't be the builder. MS. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It would be the management entity who's managing the property. MS. SCOTT: Right, and that's what I wanted to point out, okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. SCOTT: Because management changes, and that's a high ask of the management. So it's a big responsibility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. SCOTT: Section 3, environmental. The preservation requirements shall be 40 percent of the existing navigation [sic] vegetation on site not to exceed 25 percent of the total site acreage. And so what was settled on is the 24.4 acres. So the 25 percent was settled on, not the 40 percent. Number 3B, the 30-foot landscape buffer along the western PUD boundary adjacent to Valencia Trails shall meet the planting requirements of Type B. Native vegetation shall be retained within this buffer to the extent possible to satisfy the buffer requirements. As you and I both pointed out, the front satisfying one buffer point and the back by the forest preserve by Jacaranda is satisfying the other section. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Can I -- how much more time you got? Can you wrap up, please. I know you've been up there a while. MS. SCOTT: Well -- okay. I'm trying to go as fast as possible. I think you need to allow me for the back-and-forth interchange that we're having. Section 5, lighting. Site lighting shall be Dark Skies compliant, and what's struck out is "with full cutoff shielding and installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare." So February 20,2025 Page 34 of 60 "full cutoff shielding" is removed. Minimum project density and intensity. A minimum of 25 percent of the residential units, 32 units, and a minimum of 49,000 -- 4,900 square feet of commercial area must be constructed to ensure a mixed-use project. No building permits should be issued on the remaining 75 percent of residential units, 97 units, until the minimum commercial square footage has been issued certificate of occupancy. Special conditions for commercial tract. There should be no outdoor amplified sound, television, or music or live entertainment. Outdoor televisions shall be -- shall be limited to areas that are a minimum of 200 feet from the southern and eastern PUD boundaries of the commercial tract. The use of the outdoor television is limited to hours from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays, and 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. on weekends. By the way, our clubhouse and our amenities are only open until 9 p.m. daily, or nightly. Affordable housing -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Again, are these -- this is a list of requirements that you are asking for? MS. SCOTT: I'm just -- for the record, I'm just highlighting the provisions -- the proposals that were added and taken away -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. SCOTT: -- for the record. That's all I'm doing because some people, I don't think, were aware. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: She's just -- what she is doing is -- and this is -- she has an older document. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: But she's reading from the list of commitments from the PUD. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. That's the same list. MS. SCOTT: To highlight this and so that it's on the record, because some people are not aware of some things that were taken away. Okay. The rental units, as repeated by some people, shall have a minimum lease of eight months. That's really not acceptable for apartments. It should be a minimum of one-year lease. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income-restricted units, including rent. So again, if the developer is not responsible for PUD after closing, then the owner of the rental units or townhomes needs to be responsible for it. Wildfire prevention and mitigation plan, project structural design and materials totally removed. This is what was removed. "Roofs shall be constructed using Class A, B, or C fire-rated materials. The use of flammable shakes or shingles are prohibited. Soffits shall be made of noncombustible material or a minimum of half-inch nominal wood sheathing." In other words, the fire prevention materials that were required before for townhomes, they’re totally removed. Location -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Again, you're getting into issues that have nothing to do with the Planning Commission. Those are building permit issues. MS. SCOTT: But it does have to do with the Planning Commission -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, ma'am, it does not. MS. SCOTT: -- because you have to approve it -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Could you wrap it up, please. I'll give you 30 seconds more. Because you're going through material that we all know exists. That has to do with the Building Department, and it's -- they have to comply with the Florida Building Code, international building code standards, when they construct a building, and it has to pass all fire code and fire code compliance. MS. SCOTT: But they were removed. February 20,2025 Page 35 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the townhome. They're not going to build a townhome. MS. SCOTT: They were -- they were removed for the apartments. MR. BOSI: Joe, the PUD -- the PUD was struck through, and then, basically, there was an addition, and it says at the time of the SDP that the fire -- that the wildfire prevention plan, it has to be established. So all it does is it takes it from the -- it takes it from the PUD to a commitment that at SDP, that they will satisfy the wildfire prevention plan. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. It's not that they're not going to do it. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They have to comply with the building code requirements. MS. SCOTT: But I just wanted to highlight they were struck out as a requirement. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Very quickly then, last two points. Senate Bill 328 was passed May 16, 2024, and the Florida Live Local Act to spur mixed-income housing development communities across the state of Florida, which is why the proposed changes were probably put in place from townhomes to apartments. However, because we're single-family area residents with over 800 homes, projects adjacent on two sides or more to a single-family zone with 25 or more contiguous single-family homes, height is limited to 150 percent of the tallest adjacent building or three stories, whichever is greater. So that's a law that was put in place in 2024 requiring that if there's over 25 single-family homes next to a proposed development, the height should not be higher than three stories high. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Again, I appreciate you bringing up Florida Live Local, but that really has nothing to do with this petition because Live Local is to allow a developer to come into a commercial site and bypass zoning and go right to development if it's a commercial site and they're going to afford -- they're going to build affordable housing. MS. SCOTT: Right. This is -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it has -- it bypasses all local reviews. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Chair, I was going to say, this is not a Live Local project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: This is not a Live Local project. MR. BOSI: Those aspects -- that was put in place because of the allowance for commercial to transition to residential. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. MR. BOSI: They recognized that that could create harm to some individual projects, so they said if you have a Live Local project and it's next to a single-family residential development, that's when that restriction would apply. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. But is it -- MR. BOSI: It doesn't apply to this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- not the height within a mile of any Live Local project? MR. BOSI: No. That's a different component -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- of the height. It does -- that law does not apply to this project. This does not seek to utilize Live Local. We are in the public-hearing process right now. MS. SCOTT: And I apologize. I'm not a lawyer. I was a database administrator. I read this information, and that's how I interpreted. It is a mixed PUD -- mixed PUD use area, so there are going to be commercial buildings there, so that's why I stated it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I am really impressed with your due diligence because it just amazed me how thorough you are on this, and I commend you for that. MS. SCOTT: Finally, my one last subject area I wanted to touch on is from time to time I keep up with news -- Washington Post. Washington Post, October 21st, 2024, they posted a news article. "The new American Dream should be a townhouse. Americans are desperate for affordable and low-maintenance housing options." If you get a chance, look it up. Basically what February 20,2025 Page 36 of 60 it touches on, at a high level, is that the area that growing communities, such as Naples -- because it's happening all throughout the United States -- should go towards is affordable town -- affordable housing structured as townhomes, row houses, condominiums, rather than apartments. And that is the direction that communities should take in order to move forward in a positive direction. So I encourage you to look that up. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't debate that. But, I mean, the developer has the option to come forward with what they're proposing. And I would have to guess -- I mean, this is just me -- that if there was a -- were a townhome for purchase in today's market, you're probably -- probably well above 750,000 and even higher for those -- that type of product today. I mean, you know what -- you know what houses are going for in Valencia. You know the -- so, I mean, that's just the market we have down here. All right. Is that all you have? I'm going to -- I've got several questions for the developer. MR. YOVANOVICH: You've got two Zoom speakers, I think. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have two other speakers? MS. EOFF: No, Chairman. We no longer have the Zoom speakers. We have no further registered public speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Does anybody else in the audience wish -- that did not register wish to speak? One person. Yes, sir. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Were you sworn in? MR. NUNZIATA: I was with the group when everybody -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. You did, yes. Go ahead. MR. NUNZIATA: Yeah, the one issue -- THE COURT REPORTER: State your name. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Your name, please. MR. NUNZIATA: Bruce Nunziata, Valencia Trails. Just moved in there a couple months ago. We were unaware of this development, and we thought the possibility of something could happen, and our understanding, like most people, I think, in Valencia Trails, was 129 townhomes. And I don't think anybody here would have a problem with that. But, again, not to repeat anything, the one thing I don't think we talked about relates to traffic is there's a school, a huge school on the other side. This development is going to be -- as you come out the gate on the right side, on the left side there's this Bear Creek school that's just in progress now. The traffic -- there's no secret about what the traffic is like on Immokalee. It's just horrendous, dangerous, and overcrowded. And with the school on one side and this development and others, I just think, big picture, Immokalee Road has to be looked at traffic-wise. People having to come out and then turn around, a lot of the traffic has to, then -- on our side has to go west. So just to emphasize again the traffic issue. And this school is no small matter. It's 800 students, I believe. It's going to generate a lot of traffic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I understand. Thank you. With that, Mr. Yovanovich, do you have any closing discussions? I'm going to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. I do want you to clarify, though -- I have other things I wrote down, but I do want you to clarify the buffers issue as well, because that was one of the issues that was discussed. But please go ahead with your rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I want to start with I'll bet dollars to doughnuts the people who live in Valencia Trails have no idea that the reason we have the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is because of the Twin Eagles development to the north of them. February 20,2025 Page 37 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You and I know the history of that way too much. MR. YOVANOVICH: And because of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and the changes that were made, they get to live in the community they get to live in because before that the requirements were one unit per five acres. So there was an intensification of what was happening on this property through the Growth Management Plan changes. Some they're living in their community because there was change, just like there was change when the prior Growth Management Plan amendment was done. I'm not going to ask for a show of hands, but I'll admit I was once a renter. I bet you everybody in this room at one time rented a house, rented an apartment, and I bet we took care of it. So to get up there and say because you're a renter you're somehow not going to take care of where you're living is not accurate. And we hear that time and time again at neighborhood information meetings and at meetings like this. I think that is not accurate. These are units that are going to be rented at a fairly substantial rent. And we do guarantee that we will seek nurses, firefighters, police officers. It's in the document. And if -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: How do you do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We do that because we advertise -- because we're required to advertise to Amy's entity, which is the school board; to Collier County, which is the Sheriff's Office; to Naples Community Hospital and Physicians Regional. We're required to do all of those things to seek those people first. And if we can't find them there, we are income restricted to the general population of people who are not considered to be essential, like me, as a lawyer. I'm not essential, okay. But I can't live there until they first try to get Amy, who works for the school system, to live there first. So we have -- are obligated to do that as part of this process. Let's talk about -- I'll talk about the setbacks. The setback issue was between the residential and our project and the commercial and our project. We're not reducing any setbacks to our neighbors. And in fact, you heard the testimony we're increasing them, and we're increasing the buffers over what was previously there. So I'm going to just assume the person who read the document didn't understand what was occurring, and let's clarify that on the record. The setback between the commercial buildings was originally 10 feet. Some of the -- and one half the sum of the building height is a bigger building separation than is currently in the PUD. What was really approved in the existing PUD? Okay. Visualizer. The strikethrough and underline is -- originally the PUD allowed multifamily and townhome dwellings. We removed townhome dwellings because we don't intend to build them. We can put it back in. It doesn't mean they're going to get built. It's an allowed use. Multifamily is an allowed use in the existing PUD. We kept that because we were being transparent to say, "We're not building townhomes." There isn't a single word in this document that says we're required to build a 129-townhome project -- townhome buildings there. Not in there. It doesn't exist. We always had the ability to do multifamily. What was the height for the multifamily? The height for the multifamily was previously 40 feet, not 35 feet. Forty feet could have been built within 30 feet -- is it 30 feet, the original setback? The original setback was 30 feet. So I could put a 40-foot-tall zoned height building, 47-foot-tall actual height building, within 30 feet of their property line on our western property boundary, their eastern property boundary. That's what we could build today. There was a conceptual plan to have townhomes. It was conceptual. It wasn't obligated; didn't have to happen. We showed you if we built what was the original conceptual plan, it's going to look the same from the view. We showed you that sightline study. But we could, today, build multifamily within 30 feet of our western property boundary. That's what's approved today, not a townhome project. They'd have to be for-sale condos, but we're not obligated to build condos. That's the currently approved landscape -- currently approved PUD master plan. The February 20,2025 Page 38 of 60 buffer, that's what's required today. We're building -- we're giving you a bigger buffer and a far greater setback than what's approved today. The woman who got up there and spoke about the changes, the word "townhome" doesn't appear there. She read the word "townhome" in. There's nothing in here that says we have to do between 120 and 129 townhomes. It says we have to do residential dwelling units, and I showed you what the PUD currently allows. So let's make sure we're talking facts about what's approved today. A standard condominium development can be built on that project today. Not townhomes. We told you why we can't build it, okay. We told you why we can't build for-sale today. We cannot construct them and sell them for what we would be limited on what we can sell them for. That's not my client's fault that the economics of construction changed, that interest rates have gone up. The reality is, you're going to get zero units on that site if -- and that's what they want. You heard them all say, "We really want this to be the preserve" that was promised to them by someone else. I don't know if they promised them that or not, but let's just say they were promised that. They were not promised that by us. So I'm sorry if you thought that was going to be a preserve, but we didn't promise you a preserve other than -- if I can go back to -- that's what the preserve is today. Can we go back to my PowerPoint. Yeah, PowerPoint. And I know they don't want us to do what the code originally would have required, which was to essentially connect the north preserve and then run it down probably the eastern property line to get to the required acreage and not have the preserve here, because that's really what the code would have said if we didn't get a deviation. Where you see this parking, we would have simply just taken this preserve that was previously pointed to, put it over there where we're putting parking, and we would have shifted the project south, which puts them closer to here. They don't want that. We don't want that. We designed this site after the neighborhood information meeting to compact it, to increase the buffers, increase the setbacks, and address their concerns. I think I spoke to the gentleman about the "bait and switch" comment. I think he meant someone else, so I'm going to let that stay -- let that go. We didn't bait and switch anybody. We went forward with a project that we thought we could build at the time, then the construction reality hit. The economics hit, and we're requesting a change, and that change is for the better. I know there's going to be more traffic on Immokalee Road. We're going to build something on a vacant piece of property, but we're building less than what we're legally authorized today. So the potential impact to Immokalee Road is, in fact, less. We never said there wasn't going to be an impact on any of the infrastructure. They also have a way out to Vanderbilt Beach Road. So if they're concerned about traffic on Immokalee Road, when Vanderbilt Beach Road is open, they can go out on Vanderbilt Beach Road to go wherever they want to go, east, west. If they want to go north, they could take Vanderbilt Beach Road up to, I guess -- I guess they can take it all the way over to get to Airport Road, Livingston Road, whatever they want to do to head north to get to I-75. They've got -- they've got a secondary access out. So we are not in any way negatively impacting them from a safety standpoint, and we are, in fact, reducing the potential traffic impact that can occur on this site today. One of the questions that was asked, did the overall project square foot -- square footage go down from the 249 that we were previously approved to 205? Absolutely. We probably lost 50,000 square feet of rentable space by losing those 45 units. So yes, the project got smaller; thus the ability to increase the setbacks from the east property line and from the south property line. So yes, there was an economic impact through these changes in discussing what staff was recommending approval. Most of us have lived here -- well, I shouldn't say most of us. I know live here 34 years. There's been -- there's people in this room living here longer than that. If we would have just shut February 20,2025 Page 39 of 60 the door, most of these people in this room wouldn't be here. But the reality is Collier County's a great place to live, and we need people to come here and work here, and that's what we're providing an opportunity for is for people to come here and live here and work here. Eight months is not unusual for a minimum term for a rental project. We're not talking about 30-day rentals. We're talking about people who probably -- a lot of people -- I lived in The Pearl apartment. It was a transition for me. It's a transition for a lot of people. I wasn't the youngest guy there. It's been the first time I lived in an apartment since I was 30 years old, but I went there -- and there were a lot of people like me. A lot of those people were relocating here for jobs, or they were building a house. They were here, and they had an eight-month term. They stayed, and they -- if the house got delayed, that's why we have the month-to-month. We didn't want to force them to sign another eight-month lease. We wanted, if there was a delay in the construction, they can go month-to-month until they found where they can move into their home or found another place that they wanted to live. But eight months is not a transient type of development. I think you'll find that most people who rent apartments these days renew their leases because it's kind of a really nice lifestyle. I think you've heard me say before I'd still be living there if they let me keep my dog. But, you know, they didn't let me keep my dog. My dog was too big. It's a nice lifestyle for seniors that want to come down here. They rent for 12 months, and they come here just for the season. It's a different lifestyle. It's a great place for people who are working, and it's a great place for our essential service personnel to come and live and work and make our lives better. This is a good project. It meets a need in Collier County. You see the master plan that we're proposing and the setbacks that we're proposing. It is respectful of our neighbors. It retains the existing native vegetation. So we showed you on this site -- this side of the building you might see the peak of the roof as you're driving home. You're not going to see it from your backyard. You're not going to see it from your home. You might see it as you're driving in at this angle right here; otherwise, we're going to be a neighborhood that you don't even have to interact with if you don't want to. You don't have to come to the commercial if you don't want to. But this is a good project. Staff's recommending approval. There are no negative impacts on any of the infrastructure, and we request that you forward both petitions to the Board of County Commission with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Two questions before I open it to the Board for discussion, but I made the list. Can you address the request for a 10-foot barrier wall. I'm not requiring it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I just -- I don't know where the barrier wall would go except along the western boundary. MR. YOVANOVICH: The typical -- the typical buffer -- the typical buffer for landscape -- for a Type B buffer is either a wall or a hedge that reaches a certain opacity at six feet. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Residential to residential is a 6-foot wall. I think somehow claiming that a 10-foot -- needing a 10-foot wall almost gives credence to "The people who are going to live here are somehow not worthy or they're somehow unsafe." So we're not going to agree to a 10-foot wall. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There's no wall along the western boundary? That's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They have a fence. They have a fence. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They have a fence, okay. Dark Skies. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already required. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Dark Skies compliant? MR. YOVANOVICH: Dark Skies is required. February 20,2025 Page 40 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's required, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that -- we talked about -- it was asked about full cut-off shielding. I'm not sure where the lighting would impact Valencia given the setback. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, the entire project is supposed to be Dark Skies. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Dark Skies, all right. It's in the criteria. Management -- is management on site? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It will be. So there will be a management office on site? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're talking about spending about $80 million to build this project; am I close? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, yeah. So it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're not talking, you know, an insignificant investment. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I sort of my -- Chuck asked a question, but my -- I raised my eyebrows as well when I heard this new gate for Valencia. Had you heard anything about that before? MR. YOVANOVICH: I read the petition. I didn't -- I didn't take that as a "Guess what? We'll approve your project for the gates." I took it as, "We hate you, we don't like your project, and we want gates." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. It's sort of like a quid pro quo. You know, you give us a gate, and we'll like you. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. See, they still won't like us, but that's okay. MS. SCOTT: No, no. That was not the intent at all. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any questions from colleagues? I don't see anybody with anything lit up. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I just -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- I guess, for the record, during the break I met with Mike Bosi and Norm Trebilcock, who did the traffic study. And I'm just concerned about the elimination of the childcare facility because there's such a great need for childcare in Collier County, especially -- when you see a new school being developed there, that means that there's lots of young families there. So I remain with that concern; however, in respect for the petitioner's concession with the neighbors and the concern for additional traffic on Immokalee, I'm going to support that. But again, it remains that I'm concerned about the elimination of the childcare facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I don't know if we can make them build it there. If they're choosing not to do it, they're choosing not to do it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I struggle with it in my head, but I think the benefits outweigh the loss. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I don't have a question for Rich, but the biggest concern I have is the egress in and out. I really think that's going to be ridiculously unsafe. And I know it's not part of this commission's role. I wanted to ask Mike a little bit to maybe give the residents a little reassurance that it will be designed in a safe manner, because that worries me a lot. MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. The process that's going to happen is when they come in with their platting and their SDP, all of the trips that are coming out of it are going to be evaluated, and then the way that traffic is going to be moving -- consistent with the TIS we've got, but it will be updated -- it will be -- it will February 20,2025 Page 41 of 60 take the form of an operational review at that point. So we'll be looking at all of the turning movements specifically. If there's an additional need for longer turn lanes, those will be provided by the applicant, as well as we've already noted we are going to be channelizing Catawba. So that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: What does that mean? MR. SAWYER: -- in and of itself -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: What does that mean? MR. SAWYER: It means that the left movement out of Catawba will be eliminated. So you'll be able to go right, but you won't be able to go left, so you won't be able to go all the way across all of those lanes of traffic. The left-outs are the problem that you wind up having in those full intersections. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So will you be able to go -- if you come out from the new development, you will be able to take a left where Catawba used to be able to take a left? MR. SAWYER: That left movement, I believe, will still be there. I'll have to check the geometry -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. SAWYER: -- of it, but I'll have to take a look at that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's just -- I can just picture people coming out taking a right trying to get across the two lanes of highway to make a U-turn to go west. MR. SAWYER: Again, that will be looked at. If that is too short of a distance -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. SAWYER: -- that will also be part of that channelization. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what I wanted everybody to hear. MR. SAWYER: Now you did. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We had that issue when we first moved in. When we first moved into our -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sir? Sir? I've not -- thank you. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing, then. And if you have any other questions or concerns, we'll ask the -- but I close the public hearing and open for Board discussion and a motion. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I make a motion we approve it as recommended by staff. Again, my concern is traffic, which is not part of our role, and that's what Mike will be addressing as the plans get developed. So I recommend we approve it as submitted and by staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I -- there's no other stipulations to that, is there? I can't recall. Just the one -- I mean, the record still shows for the one deviation, but that deviation already exists. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Can I just ask one question of -- Mike, I'm sorry. I should have asked this when you were up here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, okay. I'll open the public hearing again. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Sorry, sorry. It's just a question for staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Shea, did you mean both petitions? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Both, and the EAC as well. Does that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no EAC on this one. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think you're EAC -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, no EAC, but it's a GMP and a PUD, so we've got two petitions. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Really? February 20,2025 Page 42 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The EAC is for the next petition. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: At what point -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do we have EAC for this one? COMMISSIONER SHEA: The minutes -- staff package said yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Maybe we do. I thought it was -- go ahead, Jaime. MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, your director of Development Review. You -- when you originally approved this petition, you did EAC for the split preserves. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. COOK: Since that was already approved, you do not need to vote as EAC again. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Transportation. Mike, traffic is always the biggest concern, and it's always the biggest comment that we hear. At what point does a project come to your office in which you say, "This isn't going to work"? Like, obviously, we approved the project. It moves forward, and then it comes to traffic, and it's X amount of vehicles, and you look at the road studies, and you say, "Well, now we can't facilitate this." How does that play out? Just -- if you could. I'm just trying to grasp it. MR. SAWYER: Understood. And it does get complicated, quite honestly. There are state regulations that require us -- that when we get to a level of service that isn't what it needs to be, in other words, when we get into Ds and Fs, those failures become our responsibility to fix. And anytime that you've got a development that comes in subsequent to that, they're able to take advantage of whatever that fix is simply by paying impact fees. We collect a good amount of impact fees, as you know, whenever somebody comes in and does development. That being said, we also need to take into consideration in this particular case any of the improvements that are in the five-year work program. In this case, that's definitely Vanderbilt, which at this point Phase 1 is going to be completed, I believe, April of next year. Phase 2 is scheduled to start early part of next year and then be completed, I believe, mid '27. So that kind of gives you that kind of -- that time frame as far as network improvements that are going to be impacting this area. We also have the improvements that are happening at Randall. Again, that should help assist getting traffic through and on Immokalee. There's a number of other things that we certainly look at, you know, when we're looking at transportation, but that's kind of in the nutshell of really what we are required to look at. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. MR. SAWYER: We ideally are having projects that come in where we do have capacity. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: You've just got to look at it at that point. But if it is, then, do you go back to the petitioner or the applicant and say, "You need to reduce to fit X," or -- like, if it's -- if you're at an F rating, and in order to get to that, even with your work programs, you're still over X amount of vehicles, do you go back to the applicant and say, "Can you reduce your trip count?" MR. SAWYER: If it's at an F, that fix becomes the county's responsibility to fix, or in some cases, we do have a number of roadways that are the responsibility of FDOT. That becomes the responsibility of FDOT to fix. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. SAWYER: And, again, they're able to take advantage of those projected required improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. I was just trying to pull the curtain back a little bit on the Wizard of Oz over there of Transportation. Thank you, Mike. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I have a motion on the floor for both a -- the GMP amendment and the PUD. So is there a second? No -- February 20,2025 Page 43 of 60 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a second. So I'll call the vote. All in favor, state by stating "aye." COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, do a like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. I thank the public for their opinions, but we face the challenge of the criteria that we're asked to review based on what's before us. And I know there's a lot of -- was a lot of personal opinions and kind of indications that this was going to be harmful to Valencia, but there's really -- other than compatibility, there's no other criteria in our evaluation that we can take that into consideration. But I thank you for coming out to the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I offer a comment? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, please, Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just to the people that came, we're just an advisory board, so this doesn't mean the project's approved. It just means we're advising the county commissioners to approve it. And they don't always do what we do. You'll have another chance to speak at that hearing as well, and that's the one that really counts. Not that this wasn't important. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. I've got to open to my commissioners. It's one minute, two minutes to 12. Do we want to take a lunch break? Because we've got two more -- three more petitions. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I've got to leave -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You've got to leave at 1:30? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I've got -- the next one is the Tamiami Trail, those two. That's the 50-acre subdistrict, which we have both the GMP and a PUD for that. And I've talked to Mr. Yovanovich about the issues with that. One concern I had with that petition is the either/or, because I don't recall ever dealing with an either/or, and I'm going to, probably at the start of that next one, ask the County Manager -- or County Attorney to address that as well, because it's -- it's an either/or, meaning it's residential or commercial -- or correction -- rentals or residential single-family. And I think we may want to zero in on a little more certainty on that, plus I have the uses I wanted to go through with Mr. Yovanovich. So that's going to probably take a little bit. And then we have another petition after that, the hours of operations. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we skip lunch and just take a break? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's public speakers on either one of these. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many -- do we have any public speakers for the Tamiami Trail? MS. EOFF: We -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't see any. Do we have public speakers for the Naples Senior Center? MS. EOFF: For the senior center, yes, we have one. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: One. MR. YOVANOVICH: Who is that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Folks that are sitting in the back, are you -- which petition are February 20,2025 Page 44 of 60 you here for? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Senior center. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The senior center. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Tamiami Trail. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We can do that in a minute. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I could -- we could probably do that very quickly so you won't have to spend your time. Terri, can you do, like, another -- THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't expect this to be that long. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where's my petition -- where's my presentation? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, your client, would you -- would you mind if we do the senior center first and then take a 15- or 20-minute lunch? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't care which one you do. I'm just looking for -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, you're here for Tamiami Trail? Oh, they're here for the Tamiami Trail. All right. Then we'll -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Some are senior center. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Some are senior center. All right. Then I can't split the difference here. So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We can move quickly on both if you'd like, or if you want to take a 15-minute break and then -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm going to take a -- since it's lunch, we'll take a 20-minute break, and we will convene at 20 after 12. I think we can get through those. Thank you. Have a trail mix. Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 12:20 p.m.) (Mike Bosi left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting, and Michele Mosca is now present in his chair.) MR. BELLOWS: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Could we have our seats, please. And just for the record, Mr. Bosi, has departed, and Michele Mosca has replaced him. It was a great improvement. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, I would -- I'm going to make a change. I'd like to go with the senior center first. I think we can get through with that pretty quickly, if we could. Say again. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't say anything. I said, "Okay." I've just got to go get a different binder. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're ready to do the senior center, Naples Senior Center. Okay. Make a -- we're going to make an adjustment to the schedule. ***I'm going to go with the Naples Senior Center because I believe we can do that rather quickly because it's certainly -- so this is a -- this is the Baker Senior Naples CFPUD amendment, and it's PL20240007860. And if we could -- any public speakers, please stand, take their oath, please. 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: Any disclosures? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich on this as well as Dr. Faffer, the CEO of the senior center. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. February 20,2025 Page 45 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about this. Next. Chuck? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Reviewed the materials, met with staff, visited the site, and spoke with a neighbor who lives behind the project, John Nicola. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Rich, do you want to make a brief introduction? And I think we can move on with this. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm happy to do it without an introduction, but you probably want something in the record. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just on the record, because I know there's some changes as well that we need to put on the record as far as the documents we received -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- that regarded the clarification of the time changes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Well, you know if I can't answer any of the questions, the team is Dr. Faffer, Mr. Arnold, and Mr. Banks, if you have questions. But basically, this is a summary slide of what we're asking. When this project was originally approved, the neighborhood was a little concerned about what was the traffic impact going to be of the Naples Senior Center, specifically the weekly lunches they would have on Wednesdays. Typically, for churches, there's a condition that says if traffic becomes an issue, we will provide police -- a police officer to direct traffic. In this particular case, since the neighborhood was concerned, we were required from the outset to provide a police officer. We've been operating for two years. The police officer doesn't really need to do anything. So we're asking to be allowed to monitor traffic with our own staff, and if that doesn't work, staff can -- county staff can require us to go back to providing a police officer there to direct traffic. And then we're asking to modify the hours of operation. And this comes about because, you know, we've been open for two years, and unfortunately, people are getting dementia and memory-related illnesses much earlier in life than we -- or than was anticipated, so their caregivers really can't get to programs during the normal close at four hours. So we want to be able, two nights a week, Tuesdays and Thursdays, be able to have evening sessions, and then two Saturdays a week. Also -- was it not up? -- and then two Saturdays a month and two Sundays per year be able to have programs for people who -- for the public as well and for members of the senior center. Those are the changes that we're proposing. You should have gotten a clarification on the hours of operation. We met with -- where that came about was we had a meeting with some of the residents in the immediate vicinity, and they just asked us to clarify some of the general language that was in our PUD to make it more specific, so that's where those changes came from. The exact language -- whoops. This is the -- this is the exact language for the hours of operation. As you can see, this was the Tuesday/Thursday I was telling you about, and this is the Saturdays, the two Saturdays. This is the two Sundays per year. Those are the hours of operation. And this is the change to the traffic-related commitment that was previously in the PUD. And with that, that's the sum and substance of everything we're asking for. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Excellent. Any questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do we have any public speakers? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff. MS. EOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, excuse me. We have staff report first before public February 20,2025 Page 46 of 60 speakers. Staff? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows, planning manager for the Zoning services. I worked on this project with Timothy Finn, who's the principal planner who wrote the staff report. We found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It meets all the criteria, the Transportation department's supporting it, and we are recommending approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: If I could just ask one question. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, please. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Why not just change the hours to 8:30 to 9:30 Monday through Friday? MR. YOVANOVICH: The residents -- first of all, Wednesday is the day we have our luncheon. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we wouldn't be doing programming that day because volunteers and staff wouldn't do that, and the residents asked us, "Please don't do it every day." COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Public speakers. Oh, sorry. Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Should I wait for the public speakers? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, let's go with the public speakers. Public speakers, please. MS. EOFF: Yes. We have one public speaker, Marie Prudente. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Marie, I would just ask, are you in support? MS. PRUDENTE: Yes, I am in support. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Because we received numerous emails, and I -- unless you want to speak. But I don't think it's going to be any issue. But you're welcome to speak if you would -- if you want. I never -- you know, we always have the opportunity for public speakers. MS. PRUDENTE: Well, okay. We'll make it quick and simple. My name is Marie Prudente, and I'm a senior at the senior center, and I want you to know that I enjoy everything at the Baker Center, and I think they're doing a wonderful job there. I know sometimes changes are inevitable, and we have to accept it, but we're willing to work with it. We're willing to work with them. And like I said, we'll all be seniors, and at some time we may need this facility. So it's not something that should be stagnant. It should be able to grow with the community and with its needs. Because we all have grandparents, we all have parents, and we'll all be old. And it's there for us, and we really, really appreciate it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. PRUDENTE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you for saying we'll all "be" old, not "are" old. MS. PRUDENTE: Well, there's old, and then there's old. But I can see we have a lot of gray hair here, white hair, and you're still functioning and doing a good job. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. PRUDENTE: And I thank you for this chance to speak. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, I close the public hearing and open it for Board discussion. Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: In speaking with the neighbor that lives behind the facility, who couldn't be here today, there was a couple things that he mentioned that I thought was worthy of consideration. One being that there seems to be that issue where they're concerned about the February 20,2025 Page 47 of 60 attendees. Do we call them attendees? DR. FIFFER: Members. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Members. The members are going ahead and turning left to go to Oakes. And what was suggested by this individual was if there could be, like, a sign before leaving the facility that says something like, "You cannot turn left," they would appreciate that, because even the police officer or state trooper, whomever sits there, they see abuses happening even with somebody there. And so if there was a sign and maybe something that's kind of a strict sign, that would really help them. That's one of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We will continue to remind our members that they're not supposed to go left. There are signs. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But I know that that was what was said, you know, that we're going to tell, but it doesn't always happen. For instance, if you have a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know -- and I don't mean to cut you off. I know, and it is not -- we've been out there monitoring. It does happen. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's very infrequently. And candidly, it may be easier with our people monitoring the traffic to make sure they don't make that left out of the luncheon than maybe with the police officer. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And definitely, they appreciate the employees monitoring traffic or cross-guards, traffic guards, whatever. That will help, but still, in the cases where you don't have somebody monitoring traffic -- I mean, it's just a sign. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have signs. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: You have a sign that says, "Don't turn left?" MR. YOVANOVICH: "No left turn." COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. DR. FIFFER: Two signs. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's required at each entrance per the current PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have -- we already have that. And, you know, some people, you know, I guess they're ignoring the sign. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, if there's a police officer there, why aren't they giving out a slew of tickets if this is problem? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's -- actually, when it's mainly happening, I think, is when -- it's not the Wednesday luncheon where we have a police officer. And if you notice, for bigger events we're going to have our people out there as well. There are -- there is the occasional -- Mr. Colucci, there's the occasional person that decides they're going to do a left, and they -- at the end of the day, it's not a traffic issue. It's clearly not a traffic issue, but it is a violation of the PUD, and we're telling our people -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I don't think this is an issue that requires an off-duty state trooper to be stationed there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: For $20,000 a year? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: That's unnecessary. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: It really was just that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Just assuring that they -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I wanted to make sure I didn't cut you off. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, just assuring that, you know, their neighborhood is protected, and the elimination of additional traffic on Oakes. February 20,2025 Page 48 of 60 COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I hear none. It's passed unanimously. Thank you. ***So next petition, these are two petitions which both will require the EAC. The PUD requires the EAC approval. This is the Tamiami Trail 50-acre subdistrict, PL20230007471 and 70, two petitions. And with that, I would ask the public speakers, if they wish to speak, please rise for the swearing. 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: Okay. And disclosures, Amy? MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chap? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I believe Mr. Yovanovich and I talked about this. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about it. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only, sir. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Reviewed the materials and met with staff. That's it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With that, Rich, the floor is yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. David Torres and Gary Haines are here from Florida Star Development. Alexis is ill, so Jem Frantz is here as our professional planner. Mr. Trebilcock -- is he still here? There he is -- is our traffic engineer. Bethany Brosious is our environmental consultant, and Suzanne Heffron did our market analysis. The property is 58 acres. It's located on Tamiami Trail basically across from Fiddler's Creek and adjacent to the industrial area here to the east of us. We're in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, but we're creating our own subdistrict to allow for a mixed-used development that would be both residential with the option of it either being a rental project or a for-sale project. Each of them have different affordability set-asides. If it's rental, it's the 30 percent with 15 percent at the 80 percent or below and 15 percent at the 100 percent and below. And if it's -- if it's for sale, it's 15 percent -- right? -- at the 120 percent and below if we go that way. Not sure which way we're going to go, but since there are enough units that are market-rate-related units, there may be a possibility to do an owner-occupied affordable project. So it will either be owner occupied or it will be a rental project. We're not -- we're not sure which one, but we've provided the option to do both. Like the first petition we talked about, there were changes in the Growth Management Plan that would allow for us to do affordable housing with C-1 through C-3 uses, and then also for I'll call them economic development type of uses in this -- in this project. Those are all allowed under the Growth Management Plan today, but we don't have the Land Development Code provisions in place yet. So like the earlier petition, we have to do both the Growth Management Plan February 20,2025 Page 49 of 60 amendment and a rezone to PUD to implement what will be coming along hopefully at your next meeting when you get the housing element regulations approved for the LDC. I was joking with Michele Mosca that I'm a little uncomfortable because normally she doesn't recommend approval of projects that I'm involved in, and she's recommending approval, so -- and staff is recommending approval for this particular project. That's a summary of what we're proposing to do. I can -- I'll quickly put the master plan up. This is the master plan, and you can see where we have the nonresidential uses along where I showed you previously the industrial park, I'll call it, and along 41, and then we have residential with appropriate buffers between the residential and the nonresidential uses allowed on the property -- or in the project. And with that, it's simply, staff's recommending approval of both petitions. It's a mixture, an MPUD that allows for residential, commercial, as well as economic uses all consistent with the Comp Plan. We have enhanced buffers along Tamiami Trail. We tried to -- we tried to make this as close to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District standards as possible but not having it be a Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District project because it's a little bit different because it's a mixed-use project. And with that, we're open to answer any questions. I know Commissioner -- I was going to call you Commissioner Strain. I'm sorry. Commissioner Schmitt, you have some questions about many of the uses that your predecessor -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's because I drilled you so hard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I felt like, you know, it was -- I had a flashback to how it used to be on specific uses within a PUD. I know you want to go through that. I don't think we have any issues with making the changes that you've asked for. So if you want to go through those and put them on the record, I'm happy to -- happy to do that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have one -- my first question -- and I'm going to open it up. I see Charles, you have a question. But let me ask, we typically have more specificity, and I did ask Michele, and Michele did say we, in the past, had these either/or. But County Attorney, from the standpoint of -- this is an either/or. It's 400 units rental or -- how many was it for -- MS. MOSCA: One eighty-six. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So this is a -- you know, these are either single-family residential or rentals. And from a specificity standpoint, I think we owe it to the public to at least kind of know what they're going to put there, and this is an either/or. And I know it depends on the market, but I would suspect that the market here is probably going to be more inclined for residential -- correction -- rentals. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as we discussed, I -- you know, I think odds are -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- it will be a rental project. But if David could make an owner-occupied project work, why would we not want to give him the ability to try? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, from a standpoint you're across the street from a pretty significant development, that's the Esplanade of the Everglades, which is part of the Fiddler's Creek PUD, but it's a separate development within Fiddler's Creek. And you're probably in close proximity to that. In fact, pretty much right across the street, which are all single-family homes, well above probably 8-, $900,000 now for those -- for that -- those properties there. And I know we don't look at value, but that's what the market's bringing back there. The other problem I had -- and I asked Mike -- and Michele, I don't know if you have the data, but my concern was the -- another mini-storage on 41. And do we have anything that shows how many mini-storages we have? Because the old basic property there, which was the flea market, is now a mini-storage. Those are all the mini-storages? And I know the Board had some very deep concerns regarding the number of mini-storages along 41. They're low impact, I understand that. They are low impact. And we do have pretty February 20,2025 Page 50 of 60 strict criteria in regards to the architectural standards to make them blend into the community. But can you move that down a little bit? I see it. Those are the two they have. They're Big Cypress Flea Market, and then, of course, all the way up at the corner there, there's three more at 41 and 951. And then, of course, several as you go up 41. I mean, I -- I'm not questioning what the applicant wants to do. If they think it's a viable business opportunity and the market's there, fine. It's just -- my concern was if this were to be rental units, I think it would certainly be marketable for, you know, storage units there. For single-family, probably not so because there's other options around. But that was my main concern. And then I'll go through the uses. But those are the two things I wanted to discuss. But you and your applicant discussed this, and you feel this is viable and you want to keep it in there as a mini-storage? MR. YOVANOVICH: We would like to keep that as an allowable use, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a tremendous demand for this. I mean, I've had a single-family home, and my garage wasn't big enough. You know, most -- a lot of people with single-family homes do, in fact -- it's not just our development. It's what's around it, too. There's plenty of demand throughout Collier County for these uses, and we had a market analysis to -- we believe market-wise there's -- and if there's not, we won't build it. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Michele Mosca. We had this discussion back and forth with the developer, the applicant, and we had discussed going from -- originally they had proposed around 100,000 square feet of self-storage. They reduced that to 80,000, which potential could support some of those light industrial manufacturing uses as well as the rental apartments or even the single-family in surrounding areas. And then they took it a step further to push it back from U.S. 41. So we don't have a large square building adjacent to the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. And that -- and to the -- just to the east of it, of course, is the -- the industrial property. I don't know what that is anymore. MS. MOSCA: Yes. It's -- so -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's everything. MS. MOSCA: -- to the east of that is the CEMEX plant. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The cement plant. MS. MOSCA: I think there's also, I think, rock crushing. There's also self-storage, the storage of other materials. And so this does, in fact, provide a good transition from those properties to the east to this current site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. The -- I guess, Charles. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, help me out here, Joe. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Why do we have to decide today anything other than whether the zoning changes from A to B? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, because he's asking for those uses specifically, and we can decide -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, he said he doesn't know what uses he's asking for. There's two options, right? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. The two options were the residential, but also we can discuss some of the commercial activity that we would allow on this site, which we can as the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I know we can, but my -- maybe I'm being too simplistic -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: -- but we change the zoning from A to B, and then it's up February 20,2025 Page 51 of 60 to the developer to come back to us and say, "This is what we want to do." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, they will not come back to us. The zoning would allow it. The next procedure would be to the county staff. Whether they choose to put in rentals or they want to go -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, it goes to the staff and then to us? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. This does not come back to us again. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So this goes straight to the Commission? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I don't understand. MR. BELLOWS: The PUD ordinance that you -- if you recommend approval on the Board, that will contain a list of permitted uses that the property owner or applicant can go to staff through the Site Development Plan process, which is an administrative process, and they can choose any of those list of permitted uses. We do not -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Once the commissioners approve it, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I'm totally confused, but that's okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Chap, they don't -- they don't come back -- we approve the zoning. The zoning allows the uses. The developer then gets to develop under that criteria. So -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Whatever you say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And this is -- not me. But it's the -- they get -- they get to -- they get to decide based on what they think the market will provide. But I do agree, Michele, from the standpoint where they're going to put the mini-storage, it's adjacent to the -- I call that almost an industrial site next door on the east. I just question, if it were going to be single-family residential development -- and that's where I got into Mr. Yovanovich with a lot of the uses. And I'm going down the -- I don't see anybody else, but I'm going to go down -- can we go through Attachment A? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I've got to zing to it, here. The first one I note, if my colleagues are looking, this is under commercial/industrial uses. The one that concerned me was laundries, family, and commercial, 7 -- SIC code 7211. I -- this -- if it were developed as an industrial/commercial, but this is also going to be residential, and I had concerns with a large commercial laundry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And believe it or not, there's a market for that. A lot of the hotels -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, I believe there's a market. MR. YOVANOVICH: But there's -- everything's indoors. All of these uses are indoors. They will all be on the nonresidential tracts. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And there are appropriate buffers between the nonresidential uses, which are all indoor uses, and the residential uses on the R tract. So we do -- we do want to keep the laundries as a use because there's a -- there's a market for that, and it's to service hotels and other businesses -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's a pretty intense use when you're talking commercial. MR. YOVANOVICH: But it's all indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All indoors. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's all indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And for my colleagues, this is heavy commercial uses, and there's three of them there, but the one -- note that it says hotels and motels. I -- I mean, your option, that you want it there, but I want the staff to know and my colleagues to know that you're February 20,2025 Page 52 of 60 looking at, in the commercial area, potentially this could be a hotel. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How -- what was -- what -- what would be the height of the hotel? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. Let me get the Development Standards Table in front of me. Give me a second. The commercial -- the nonresidential uses, the maximum height actual is -- well, the zone is 50 -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Fifty. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or 55. The mini-storage can go to 55. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're talking almost a four-story building, four-story -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And 55 or 60 feet is the actual. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Because I know in Fiddler's Creek, I believe it's up to 100 feet, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think anything there is 100 feet, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But it's -- yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's in the PUD up to 100. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I talked to you about the welding repair. My only concern is the small welding shop, but you know, some welding shops -- what I would -- didn't -- I don't think it would be appropriate there. Again, we almost get the border between commercial and industrial where we have large welding shops with racks of steel outside. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's all indoors. There's no outdoor storage. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No outdoor storage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything is indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because that, again, can be a pretty intense use. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, again, everything is required to be indoors. So this is not -- this is not your typical industrial park like we have over here off -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Like we have across the street -- or down -- up the street. MR. YOVANOVICH: North. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Estey and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know I have no idea my directions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, you know, yes, the stuff that's across from the airport. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Across from the airport. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not that. It's not that use. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Communications tower. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're fine with removing a communications tower. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And there's one right on the property next to it. Food and kindred products, 2012. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll take it out. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't know what a kindred product is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't either. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Other than a power bar, I guess, is a kindred product. Sawdust. All right. Medical laboratory, research and rehab center. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought you were fine with that because it's all indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I am. I just want to make sure that we're clear that this is a storefront operation, basically. MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything is indoor. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Indoor. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you want -- dialysis is one of the -- February 20,2025 Page 53 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Dialysis. It can be a place to go for a dialysis or if somebody has to go for whatever shot that they have to get. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or draw blood, things like that. Those types of uses. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What was local and suburban transit? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Local and suburban transit. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got to get my -- what's that SIC code number? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: 411 [sic]. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: 411-4173. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you get -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got to get my binder. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I just figured you knew it right off the top of your head. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got them all. That's the only one I don't remember. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Learn something new every day. MR. YOVANOVICH: Prove me wrong. Four one what? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: 4111 to 4173. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Again, I looked at these because of the proximity to the residential. That was really my main concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's limousine services, it's 411, buses, things like that. One of them is railroad, but we don't have a railroad. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah, I don't think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I know that -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We took out the rental of railroad cars -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Local passenger -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- because I know that's a big market for railroad cars in -- that was 4741. He took that off. MR. YOVANOVICH: They've become excellent places to tailgate at football games. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Now we're back down to miscellaneous again. That's where we have 7218 which, again, is an industrial laundry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And, again, I was -- and when I spoke to David, he goes, "Believe it or not, we have genuine interest in that use." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, I know there's hotels and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, it's all -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't know if any of that exists on Marco Island. There's a lot of hotels that send off laundry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And, again, it's all indoors, so it's not going to be a noisy neighbor to the residential uses. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. That's -- so we did strike 4741, rental of railroad cars. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we struck food and kindred products. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And kindred products. And -- but the others -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And the communications tower. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the communications tower. All right. Okay. Yes. I've got the County Attorney first. Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Based on the discussion today, there needs to be a little bit of tightening, so I'm going to propose a change in the GMP, that it states under Paragraph F that "All dwelling units will either be rentals or owner occupied." It currently says -- just the affordable units has that specificity, so that change there. And then in the PUD, wherever there's a principal use for residential, it's going to be subject to the affordable housing section. And then under the affordable housing section, since the February 20,2025 Page 54 of 60 community is either a rental or owner occupied, we need to clarify -- you have the statement that I just read under Paragraph F. That needs to be in the PUD as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And then I think we're pretty clear. Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You good with this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Heidi and I spoke about it before -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Heidi, thanks. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you brought it up. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thanks. Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. I just need some education on this as to how do we come up with a list like this? Like, there's things that I see that maybe we should consider that aren't on this list. Like, how do you develop a list like this? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The petitioner -- but I'll ask the staff. But typically the petitioner comes in with one over the world, and then they hammer with the staff on what they would and would not allow based on the location. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And what if a future need comes up? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They would have to amend the PUD. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And -- but, like, schools are not on here. I see vocational school, but a regular school or childcare center, like, those kinds of things are not on here, how is that determined? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They would have to come in and amend if they allowed a childcare center. It's not going to be a school site. It's not big enough, but it could be -- you know, it could be a -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Well, it could be a vocational school. You could do -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Michele, go ahead. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District currently allows for those commercial types of uses, the neighborhood uses. Typically, your C-1 through C-3, your lower end of intensity. And then it also allows for industrial and business type uses. What staff did is we looked at all of the economic development uses within the Land Development Code and worked with the applicant. Then the applicant provided some additional uses beyond what's currently allowed in the economic development use list, and we determined whether or not it would be appropriate. So that's how we came up with that listing of uses. So some of those uses -- and as Rich had pointed out, this particular Growth Management Plan amendment precedes the required Land Development Code amendments, which staff is currently working on, where we'll identify all of those specific uses for commercial, for business, and industrial. That hasn't occurred yet. We're in that process. So they've come in before that occurs, and now we have to kind of go through that list. And as Mr. Schmitt had stated, this list was much longer. So we went back and forth with the applicant to determine what could be appropriate on the site. And are there still some that are a lot more intense? Perhaps. So what we asked the applicant to do, and they agreed, is that all of these uses would be indoor. There's no outdoor storage of anything, no storage of raw materials, no fleet vehicles, all of those types of things. So with the buffering and the location on the eastern side of the property for the more intense uses, we felt as though that was an appropriate mix. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Michelle, under miscellaneous, they have education services, 8221 through 8299. I don't have the SIC code, but I would suspect that would allow, like, a computer training center, some other type of educational small impact. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we do allow -- under the commercial, professional, and general office uses, we do allow child daycare. So that -- I know you specifically mentioned that February 20,2025 Page 55 of 60 one. That is -- that is an allowed use. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Where is that on this list? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you go to Page 2 of 19 of the PUD, it's Item 2D, as in "dog." Child daycare services, 8351. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, there it is. Child daycare, subject to restrictions provided in the LDC section. So it's allowed, yeah, which would make sense, if there were certainly 400 rental units, to have an on-site childcare center. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any other questions? I don't see light up at all from the staff. So with that, do we have any registered public -- oh, go ahead. Staff, thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Nanny. MS. GUNDLACH: -- Chairman. We just have a condition of approval we have to read into the record. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. And it states the following: "Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a Listed Species Management Plan is required for the management of the bald eagle, the Florida panther, black bear, and all other listed species." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. They would still have to go through the federal permitting process if they identify wetlands or -- and I would guess in this area, it is in the panther habitat area, identified. They're going to -- I suspect. But whether it's going to be the bonneted bat issue or panther mitigation units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're in the secondary zone. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Secondary zone, yes, so they would go through a Section 7 consultation, and that would be part of the federal permitting process. I suspect -- I don't suspect there's any wetland issues there, but if there are, they'll go through the permitting as well. There could be. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: We may have to go through the wetland permit. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, you may have to. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Okay. I have my environmental consultant if you really need to hear from her. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, no. I'm good. Well aware of the environmental issues. Staff, okay. With that, any registered public speakers? MS. EOFF: Mr. Chairman, we do not have any registered speakers in person. We do have one registered speaker for Zoom, but they are not currently online. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, okay. Wow. Anybody here who would like to speak that did not sign up yet? MR. MOLDINARO: Just a brief comment. We're together. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Did you swear in? MR. MOLDINARO: We did not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Could you please swear in and come up to the microphone and state your name, 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? MR. MOLDINARO: I do. Thank you for allowing us to speak. My name is Peter -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Your name, please. Your name. MR. MOLDINARO: Peter Moldinaro. We reside at the Esplanade by the Island, 15510 Rio Ponace Drive. Our primary concern is on that section of highway Route 41, traffic already poses a February 20,2025 Page 56 of 60 problem as you begin to exit out of the Esplanade, particularly making a left-hand turn onto 41. That speed limit at that point is 60 miles an hour. As I'm sure the Board is aware, there is a further residential development that is going to be taking over the former Naples Links Golf Course. As the traffic starts to congest on that section of 41, it's becoming increasingly hazardous to exit on 41 to make a left-hand turn. And we're wondering how that can be addressed so there remains a safe way of traveling in and out of our residence. The same situation exists as you exit the back entrance from Fiddler's Creek, but they at least have a four-way highway. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Of course, Fiddler's Creek, for the last two years, have been working on the traffic signal. Now their latest, I believe, is -- they're looking at is June for that traffic signal. I can tell you they had another snag because they wanted to put a foundation pole in for one of the mast arms, and they discovered that they were going to run right into a -- what do you call the cable? Yeah, fiber -- thank you -- fiberoptic cable. So that has to be moved, and that's another $50,000. So -- but I'm very familiar with your development, because originally when Fiddler's Creek was developed, that was not going to be an entrance there. MR. MOLDINARO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The entrance was going to be there and then a further one up north, there was another entrance. But when that property was sold off to Taylor Morrison, of course, they got the right for an entrance because it's a state road. MR. MOLDINARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's a -- it's a U.S. road or state? MR. SAWYER: State. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State Road. Thank you. So but -- and I -- I think Norm -- if I could ask Norm to come up, because I wanted to ask him a question as well. MR. MOLDINARO: That's only -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. MR. MOLDINARO: Keep in mind, it's only two lanes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's only two lanes there, yes. MR. MOLDINARO: So it is rather precarious as it currently exists. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. And it's unfortunate because when -- I say "unfortunate" because Esplanade wasn't even on the -- on the future vision when they widened -- MR. MOLDINARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- U.S. 41. And I don't think there's any plans -- eventually, they're probably going to have to go further with the widening. It's six lanes, and then it narrows to four, and then just past there, it's two -- MR. MOLDINARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- when you get -- and, I mean, eventually you may have to make a right turn and go down and make the U-turn at the -- at -- I call it the old flea market there, which is -- so, Norm, what's -- sir, if you have any other comments. But is that it? MR. MOLDINARO: Just traffic-related prominently. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I can't solve the problem. Because I know that there's capacity on that part of 41. It seems crowded, and I know it's crowded, but I could tell you there's capacity. Norm, what's the -- what's the plan for this one? It will be a -- is this going to be a right-in, right-out, or will there be a full opening that they can go -- MR. TREBILCOCK: So we would -- we would potentially need to put in, like, a left-turn lane. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Left turn in. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. And then, you know, long term, if they ever do widen, then that gets determined down the road -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. That will be -- February 20,2025 Page 57 of 60 MR. TREBILCOCK: -- based on that expansion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- with the state -- negotiating with the state, if they're going to allow for a full opening, yes. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. But right now, at this point we would -- and it would be based on the 60-mile-per-hour -- you know, 60-mile-per-hour posting, so it is a long turn lane and -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But any -- any improvements that are going to be required, if -- that left-turn lane of decel. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's all subject -- that's all on the developer for -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- the cost of that -- MR. TREBILCOCK: All site related. I mean, we're talking 400-foot-plus length. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. TREBILCOCK: And that's all on us, and plus queue, and we would go through permitting with the Florida DOT for that as well, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because I -- sir, I really understand. I mean, you're making a left turn. And it's been very dangerous coming out of -- MR. MOLDINARO: It is. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- Fiddler's Creek. That's why the light's going to go in, but -- MR. MOLDINARO: Now, that light might give some relief in terms of at least blocking some of the traffic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It will allow for timing. And I'll look to Norm, because he knows that when that light activates, it's going to -- MR. TREBILCOCK: It will provide some gaps. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's going to provide a gap. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, that's right. MR. MOLDINARO: The danger, though, is traffic coming in the other direction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I would talk to your -- I would talk to Esplanade because that Publix shopping center on the eastern edge there is -- there is what's drafted to be a road that goes towards Esplanade, so -- MR. MOLDINARO: Goes from Esplanade -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- that would tie the two. MR. MOLDINARO: -- to the Publix shopping? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That would tie it to that Publix shopping center which would then take you to the light. MR. MOLDINARO: We were told that initially at the time of purchase. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That would alleviate your left-hand turn out. MR. MOLDINARO: Well, it would. The developer has somewhat backed off of what were oral recommendations or oral commitments at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Keep the pressure on. You guys can do it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because I don't -- I don't recall -- I know there's a bike lane for that, a pretty wide bike lane there, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. You'll see it. If you're in that parking lot, you look, it's a full-on road. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Full-on road. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. It goes right into the woods, basically. Right into the grass. MR. MOLDINARO: Yeah. It's -- also within the Esplanade, there's an opening for it that's currently barricaded. February 20,2025 Page 58 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Esplanade -- MR. MOLDINARO: But we've been told that's left to private developers and that Taylor Morrison has no control over that site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would -- you might want to talk to Mr. Sawyer back there. I don't even know if the PUD required that road to be put in on the Esplanade. I'll ask Mike. But, Norm, so you're -- the rest of that is all -- right -- you might have a left-turn lane in, a right out. MR. TREBILCOCK: And we'd have a right -- likely a right-turn lane, depending on meeting the warrants as well. Again, that would have to be sized based off -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So if somebody exited that and wanted to go east, they would have to right turn and make a U-turn up at the light, eventually, at the Greenway Road, or whatever the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: I mean, that's usually your best -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: At the Fiddler's Creek light there? MR. TREBILCOCK: -- your best option. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. I would imagine most of the traffic leaving there is going to go west anyway. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: A preponderance of it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sir, anything else? Yeah, Mike, did -- do you know -- that's a good question. I guess we can ask that on the record. Was there a requirement for interconnect from the Esplanade over to the Publix shopping center? MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. I believe at one point the master plan did show a connection, but that's -- that's one of the elements that are internal to PUDs. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SAWYER: And they're allowed to make changes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: And keep in mind, when we're here, we're looking at the zoning for an entire development. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SAWYER: And even those developments come in, as we see them as amendments, and the master plan can certainly, you know, be amended through the process. But we also get that second bite of the apple when they come in with their SDPs and their plats. And so changes can also happen when those plats and those SDPs come in. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: When those SDPs and plats come in, we also get another TIS with the operational aspects looked at at the same time. So it's -- we look at it at zoning. We have TISs that go with that. Then when they come in with their plats and plans, that's the second bite of the apple. That's when they're looking at, again, how that traffic is changing over time and also, operationally, what changes need to happen. So again, to answer your question, that particular road link, it can be there, you know, as part of the master plan -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- but it can change over time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I know the right-of-way is there. They have more than enough right-of-way to do that. I would say, based on what Chuck just said, it's put pressure on your community, because the Esplanade -- who's the developer? Taylor Morrison is still there developing, and I think you could put pressure on them to put that interconnect to the Publix. February 20,2025 Page 59 of 60 MR. MOLDINARO: I understand that's not an issue for this board. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MR. MOLDINARO: But at the public meetings we have had with Taylor Morrison -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. MOLDINARO: -- they have taken the position it's hands off, and it's not within their control that -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. It's in their control. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm making a note right now. If they come in for something, it will be the first thing we talk to them about. MR. MOLDINARO: Well, thank you. Thank you. That would solve some of the safety issues. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Ma'am, does that cover your point as well? MS. MOLDINARO: Yes. We're together. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're together. I couldn't tell. MS. MOSCA: For 40 years, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Then I close the public hearing. Mr. Yovanovich, do you have any closing comments or issues? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I think on this one you are here as they EAC as well, right? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We are here to vote as the EAC, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Ms. County Attorney -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Heidi? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- what did you need in the motion? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we've got two things in the motion. We have subject to the changes as she -- as noted by the County Attorney, and that's on the record, and then the condition that was added by Nancy that they would be subject to a listed species survey and a Habitat Management Plan, was it; Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Just a Listed Species Management Plan. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Listed Species Management Plan, which is going to be required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife or the Florida Game during the permitting process, the ERP process and the federal. MR. YOVANOVICH: So if you wanted to say, "Subject to the staff recommendation in the staff report for the PUD" -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that would work. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And the attorney's. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the County Attorney. MR. YOVANOVICH: And take out communication towers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Take out communication towers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Remove kindred, whatever they were. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the kindred products. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Kindred products. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I looked it up, and it sounded like it was a power bar to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Take away the railroad -- rental of railroad cars. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion made. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The motion made, and that's for both the -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Both. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- Growth Management Plan and the PUD and sitting as the EAC. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And sitting as the EAC, correct. February 20,2025 Page 60 of 60 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any object, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. There you go. Rich had a successful day. MR. YOVANOVICH: We like that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: He likes the "pass" one when we just make it "motion to approve." All right. So the next meeting, March 6th. Ray, was it 3:30, you said? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Three. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Three o'clock. MR. BELLOWS: Three o'clock. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And 5:05. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then we're followed by a training session and then the LDC amendments. Subject to that, I recommend -- I make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So moved. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:12 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION __________________________________________ JOSEPH SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on _3/20/2025__, as presented ____X____ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.