Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/17/2025July 17, 2025 Page 1 of 82 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida July 17, 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 (attending remotely) Paul Shea, Secretary Randy Sparrazza Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Charles "Chap" Colucci ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I James Sabo, Principal Planner July 17, 2025 Page 2 of 82 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, good morning. Welcome to today's Planning Commission, July 17th, 2025. I'd ask all to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask Commissioner Shea to please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schumacher? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'll take time now -- Vice Chair Schumacher, Chuck, are you on the line? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, he is on the line. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Can we make a vote to accept him to participate remotely, given the unique circumstances; he had a business meeting which he could not make -- later this afternoon, but he'll be on most the meeting, so we can take a vote. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Passes unanimously. Welcome, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we hear him say that he's here? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're here. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci is absent with -- I think he has an excuse, right, approved absence, whatever that means. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart. (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not here. We have a quorum, sir, six of seven. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. And for the audience, to be aware, yes, the Vice July 17, 2025 Page 3 of 82 Chair can vote remotely but, however, if one of us leave and we go down under four present, it is no longer a quorum. But we do have a quorum, so we can proceed. Ray, are there any addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. The next meeting is on August 21st for my fellow commissioners. Are there any projected Planning Commission commissioners absent? I will not be here -- excuse me, sir. Thank you. I will not be here on the 21st. Are there any other projected absent -- commissioners absent? Chuck, will you be here on the 21st? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir, I will be there on the 21st. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, good. Thank you. Next is the approval of minutes; May 15th, 2025. Are there any comments or changes to the minutes of May 15th, 2025? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Seeing no comments, can I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Motion so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second, please. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposition. Passes, thank you. Chairman's report; I have nothing right now, but I will have something when we start the agenda. As far as BCC report, Ray -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- can you -- yeah, cover that, but I also want my fellow commissioners to understand what happened with NC Square so they're aware what took place. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. So June 24th, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Greenway Fritchey rezone. That was a vote 4-0. Then on July 8th, NC Square was heard, and Mike will give you the rundown of it. MR. BOSI: Good morning. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Yeah, on July 8th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the NC Squared [sic] petition. It was -- it was revised, went back to the original commitments, and the only modification was they adjusted the percentage of units that were dedicated to affordable housing and the income levels that were associated with the affordable housing. And with the 30 percent for affordable housing, 15 percent at 120 and 15 percent at 140, the Board of County Commissioners did approve that. We had coordination with the Chairman whether the Planning Commission needed to see it, but based upon the fact that it went back to its original approval and the issue was what was the policy decision related to the affordable housing, we decided we'd move forward without it having to go back to the Planning Commission. We coordinated with the Chair. He was in agreement. The Board of County Commissioners took action, and they approved it, like I said, at 120 and 140 with the affordable housing commitments. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. My only comment at that time was if the Board seemed July 17, 2025 Page 4 of 82 fit to revert it back to us, we would hear it again, but it was pretty much back to the original zoning with some modifications to the affordable, but -- so that was pretty benign. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it seems to have been fairly well accepted by the neighboring communities. MR. BOSI: It was. There was a tremendous amount of opposition from Valencia Lakes but they, at the hearing on the 8th, had -- they had said that they were in -- supportive of the proposed amendments. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Did they keep the daycare? MR. BOSI: No, the daycare was dropped. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Okay. Now we'll proceed to the advertised public hearings, and we have two items that are companion items, and I do note that they are separate in the fact that the criteria for approval is different. And I thought about this, Mike, and I think it's best we hear the entire petition, but we're going to have to vote separately because one is the waiver for the distance between gas station/service station, and the other are the PDI issues that we have to deal with. And I know the public, if they want to make a comment, can hear two different petitions and hear the same comments for each petition. We'll just hold off on voting for both. So as long as the petitioner is agreed to that, I think we can do that. So the two petitions we'll be hearing -- this is Costco Wholesale, intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock. That's PL20240011790, and the companion item, PL20240011559. And one is, again, with the separation of the service station, and the others have to do with the -- what is called a PDI, which is an insubstantial change. This is rather unusual because this petition was reverted to the Planning Commission. These are typical -- a PDI is -- and the service station, as the audience well knows, are typically heard by the Hearing Examiner, and the Board of County Commissioners asked that this item come to the Planning Commission. We as the Planning Commissioners as well, this is for the audience to understand, we're appointed by commissioners. So we do have the authority to bring an item back to our level rather than the Hearing Examiner, but in this case, the Board directed it. I want to note that PDIs are typically heard by the Hearing Examiner; however, due to the significance of the petition and the amount of public interest in the proposed project, the BCC directed that the waiver of -- and the request for variances be heard by Planning Commission, and in doing so, that we would conduct a thorough review, and understand that was the words they used. But the thorough review, we have to -- and we're in a box. We have to vote based on the criteria each of the applicant or each of the petitions involve. I want to note -- and that said, this is not a rezoning hearing. The property is already zoned. The parcel in the southeast section of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road is already zoned commercial and is part of the Hacienda Lakes PUD. Regardless, I anticipate we're going to hear from the public regarding their concerns with the impact of the proposed development, specifically the impact of traffic and the supporting traffic analysis, which I have to point out at this point, it is not part of our criteria review. But we will hear your concerns, we will record your concerns, and we will certainly forward any of your concerns to the Board of County Commissioners. But understand, again, traffic is not part of the criteria that we use to evaluate. That traffic and the traffic impacts are clearly part of the staff review process when they submit their -- what is called a Site Development Plan, and I'll have staff reiterate that when we get to some of those points. So prior to the hearing -- and this is unusual. I've asked staff -- prior to hearing from the petitioner, I've asked staff to give a brief overview of the history and purpose of an activity center. July 17, 2025 Page 5 of 82 This is an activity center. It's been an activity center since 1989. And I want the public -- the media, as well as my fellow commissioners -- because we have new commissioners up here who need to understand the confines of what we call the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Future Land Use Map. And the intent here is just to provide a basic overview and understanding of this intersection and the Activity Center No. 7. It is not in any way meant to serve to be an advocate for the proposal. That's not what we're doing. But I just want to lay the groundwork so folks understand what we're dealing with and what an activity center is. So, Mike, can I ask you to go through a brief overview so the public understands what this is and that it is not -- it is not a rezoning, per se. The property is already zoned, and it is specifically dealing with the waiver and then the insubstantial change request. Mike, thank you. MR. BOSI: Thank you, again. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As Chairman Schmitt had indicated, he's asked me to provide just a basic brief overview of what the activity center is within the Growth Management Plan, what it -- how it functions, what type of uses would be associated with it, the actions of how it aligns with the existing Hacienda Lakes PUD. And I know, because of the amount of folks that we have in the room, we're going to be -- it's going to be a full day, so I'll try to get through it as quick as possible but try to give the backdrop of why we're here and what's the strategy and the overall approach towards commercial and intensity related to activity centers. First of all, I just wanted to go through, as Joe mentioned, the Growth Management Plan is the highest regulatory document that the county has related to land-use regulations, and there's two provisions that implement that Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code and the Codes of Law and Ordinances. And each one of those two documents, the LDC and the Codes of Laws and Ordinances, have to be aligned in an agreement with the Growth Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan is the long-range goal and vision for our community. The Land Development Code and the Codes of Laws and Ordinances are the roadmap for how you get there, and then we also have the administrative code that fills in the gaps towards how you fill out your applications, other specifics of the process for how you go through the public-hearing process. This is your Future Land Use Element of the GMP. The purpose is to control for the protection and management of natural resources for public facilities, coastal and rural development, as well as housing, community character, and design. Those are the large goals that are contained within our Growth Management Plan. And then you've got goals, objectives, and policies that implement that. The purpose of the Future Land Use Element is to decide -- is to guide the decision-making of Collier County on regulatory, financial, and programmatic matters pertaining to land use. Most directly, this element controls location, type, intensity, and timing of new and revised land use. So the GMP is the highest regulatory document that dictates how land use is arranged, how those relationships should be established, and how mobility and how -- is provided for within the county. As the Chair has mentioned, this intersection at Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard, since the adoption of our current Growth Management Plan 1986, 36 [sic] years, we have designated the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard as a mixed-use activity center. And then prior to 1989, the way that our commercial allocation was within the county is strip development along U.S. 41, strip development along Pine Ridge Road. Those type of arrangements provide for a tremendous amount of ingress/egress points on your transportation system, and it really slows down the flow of traffic. The thinking behind the activity center was to concentrate your activity centers, your intensity -- your most intense uses within your community at the intersection of two major collector arterial roads that can handle that type of intensity so we can get away from that strip development and have the concentration within our activity centers. That has been our strategy for 36 years July 17, 2025 Page 6 of 82 where the intensity within this community was going to be arranged for. Once again, within the Future Land Use Element it says, "Where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated for new commercial zoning." It avoids strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development. It's a focal point within the community. They're intended to be human scale, pedestrian oriented, and interconnected with abutting properties whether commercial or residential. From a land-use perspective, our mixed-use activity centers include the full arrangement of commercial uses; residential units at our maximum density of 25 units an acre; institutional uses, such as motel uses, hotel, at a maximum of 26 units per acre; community facilities; and other land uses generally allowed within the urban designation. In 2011, Hacienda Lakes was approved, and Hacienda Lakes fulfilled the vision of our Growth Management Plan. Hacienda Lakes, as you will notice, is 2,262 acres. About 20 percent [sic] is dedicated to residential land use; 38.8 percent [sic] is dedicated to residential/medical use. That's a mixed arrangement; 35 acres is dedicated to business park. Those are light industrial, qualified targeted industries, job-creation type activities; 34 acres is dedicated to commercial, the subject matter we're dealing with today. Forty-seven acres is attraction; that's your swamp buggy races. Preserve is the majority of the -- of the acreage; 1,544 acres are dedicated to preserve. So what you can -- what you'll notice, the density associated with Hacienda Lakes is a very low density. It's under one unit per acre, but also you've got your public facility dedication, you have a junior deputy segment as well, as well as the school. From the list of uses in the pods of uses that were approved, this truly was and is a mixed development. I've heard a number of folks say this is a residential development. It has a residential component, but this has five other designations that are nonresidential within it that occupy the land uses that were programmed and have been programmed since 2011, that -- the arrangement for how land uses were going to be arranged within Hacienda Lakes. As I said, it fulfilled the vision in the direction of the Growth Management Plan of where these type of intensity of uses should be located. The Chairman mentioned, there's two sets of evaluations. For the PDI application, it will be an evaluation based upon what is and what isn't a substantial change. This list, you have A through K that you will go through, and does it qualify for an insubstantial. That's just a list that would -- that's within there for does it qualify. And then the evaluation, the evaluation goes back to the original approval, the PUD findings and the rezoning findings, which were contained as an attachment within your -- within the PDI package of the original determination related to Hacienda Lakes. And then the second is the separation requirement, and that has four individual evaluation criteria that the Planning Commission is going to review it by. Whether the nature and the type of the boundary structure or feature line between the proposed establishment and existing gas station, we should say, is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed facilities. These -- the structures that they talk about can be lakes, marshes, wetlands, designated preserves, canals, and this case, a four-lane arterial collector roadway. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is engaged in the servicing of automobiles during the regular business hours or if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the facility with fuel pumps sells food, gasolines, and other convenience items during the daytime, nighttime, and on a 24-hour basis. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is located within a shopping center primarily accessed by a driveway or in front of -- it fronts on or is accessed by a platted right-of-way. And No. 4, whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse impact upon adjacent land uses, especially residential uses. So those are the four criteria you'll evaluate the separation requirement. The PDI will be based upon the original findings of the Hacienda PUD and the rezoning findings. That's the overview. July 17, 2025 Page 7 of 82 I have for -- just the setting, but I wanted to provide for -- and just -- and the Chairman did mention it. Hacienda Lakes in their commercial designated area allows for SIC Code 5332, which is a department store, which is where -- Costco is qualified as a department store. It's an allowed use. What you're going to evaluate is within the separation requirements, are the four standards that are -- the four criteria for evaluation, are they satisfied? And then on the PDI, does it qualify as an insubstantial change? And staff's made the determination it does. And does it still maintain the consistency of the original rezone finding and the PUD findings. And with that, it concludes my opening remarks. Any questions you may have... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike, thank you. I felt that it was important just to set the stage. Again, not advocate for the proposal, but just so we can understand it all started from the same groundwork and the underpinnings of exactly what we're dealing with here, and that is an existing zoning. We're dealing with -- specifically dealing with requests for an insubstantial change, which I know the petitioner is going to expound upon that. For the ground rules, we hear from the petitioner, and we will then open it up for public comment. Typically, we allow five minutes per speaker. I do caution, though, that we need to know and understand -- if anybody's going to cede their time, if you've hired a consultant, we don't know. I don't know who you have here to speak, but if you're going to cede time, we need to know who registered, who ceded their time so that -- if you wanted somebody to speak longer than five minutes. I do caution as well in regards to repetitive comments. We're going to hear it. I know it's important. If somebody wants to come up and speak, I'm not going to deny that. You have every right to come up and speak in regards to this -- the petition, both requests, both the service station -- or the fuel pump, I'll call it, because it's really not a service station. It's just a fuel-dispensing center -- to come talk about that as well as the various aspects of the insubstantial change. So with that I turn it over to the petitioner. MR. WESTER: Thank you. My name is Brad Wester with Driver, McAfee, Hawthorn & Diebenow, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, Jacksonville, Florida, 32202, representing Costco and the landowner for these petitions. In the interest of the public here that need to speak, I'll also be timely. There is some redundancy at the beginning of my presentation just to kind of go over the activity center, the land use, and the zoning as well. The first request, as we've discussed already, it's an ASW. It's the application title known as a waiver for minimum separation distance of 500 feet between actual lot lines, and that's a significant element in this is the actual property lines, with a resulting separation distance currently of 132 feet between both property lines of the existing 7-Eleven and our request. The next request is our PDI that we also discussed. Insubstantial change to the Hacienda Lakes MPUD to add deviations for certain relief from certain standards such as architectural glazing, building facade massing, light fixture heights, loading spaces, landscape standards for interior vehicular use areas, and additional parking, signage, and to revise the mass transportation commitment. It's a 25.84-acre property. We know it's located southeast corner of Collier and Rattlesnake. It is in a mixed-use activity center, specifically Subdistrict No. 7. It is also zoned commercial as part of the commercial tract for the 2,200-acre Hacienda Lakes PUD. And then the Hacienda Lakes PUD is also approved, as noted, for 327,500 square feet of retail, 70,000 square feet of office, 140,000 square feet of business park, 135 hotel rooms, and 1,760 residential units, and that is combined both multi- and single-family. Here's a depiction of the site. Here is an aerial of the property. We can come back to it as needed. This is the distance from the current Costco facility that most are aware of. As the crow flies, roughly 23 minutes, 12.7 miles. And on -- the image on the right is actually showing the existing Costco facility. July 17, 2025 Page 8 of 82 Here is the property itself with some imagery noting the one, two, three, and four of the various corners. And then as the planning staff mentioned, the Comp Plan, which is the umbrella for Growth Management, the constitution for Growth Management in the county, and really throughout the state of Florida, is most discernible through the Future Land Use Map, right? It's a colored map that guides the growth for long-range planning. And as discussed previously, this is in a commercial district also known as the Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict No. 7. And here it is noted on the property a little bit closer at the intersection there. Programmed for a long time that way and predetermined. As such, to put it in context, here are all of the activity centers in Collier County. Highlighted by our proposal, which is part of that activity center -- mixed-use interchange activity center index map as part of the Comp Plan and the county's records. So you can see the preplanned approach for urban planning for all the mixed-use activity centers throughout the county. More specifically, and closer up, the actual mixed-use activity center at the intersection. So you can see the boundary as it's wrapped around our subject property. So you can see the 25-acre portion of the Hacienda Lakes MPUD. More specifically, as described previously -- and I'll go over it pretty quickly -- mixed-use activity center subdistrict locations based on intersections, major roads. Rattlesnake Hammock is Activity Center No. 7. We discussed that it is to really promote more than just strip development, and there's allowed mixtures of land uses as described by staff. This is a depiction of the actual Hacienda Lakes MPUD, and there is the boundary highlighted. Again, noting not only are we part of an activity center, we're a part of a commercial zoned district, but we're a part of the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use Planned Development. More importantly, here is the commercial subset of that same Hacienda Lakes MPUD. Noting the red highlighted here, the commercial tract within that Hacienda Lakes. These are a depiction pulled directly from the MPUD which describe several pages of the allowed uses on the property. Highlighted here -- I know we have a certain SIC code for department store, which really covers the overarching program that Costco utilizes, but auto home supply, automotive repair, parking, eating and drinking establishments, food stores, gasoline service stations, home furniture, miscellaneous retail, and then other commercial. So it's all-encompassing, and there are a lot of various uses that are permitted by right in that PUD. (Amy Lockhart is now present.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Brad? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I just take a moment. I want to make sure folks understand that Amy Taylor [sic] has joined us. She's our school board representative. And I failed to ask my colleagues, both -- we had to swear in. I went right by that, and also disclosures. I'm going to take the time to do that right now. Go ahead. MR. BOSI: And just -- Troy said the Zoom, they're hearing the audio. They're not seeing the video. There's a slight -- he's asking if we could have a two-minute break just to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. MILLER: Give me just a second here. Go on. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we can do the disclosures. Do we have any disclosures? Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I met -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Site visit. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I met with the applicant and his -- both Mr. Wester and his real estate director. I met with them personally. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and had a telephone conversation with Brad, with Mr. Wester. July 17, 2025 Page 9 of 82 COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials -- staff materials, visited the site, and met with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And with that, while he's still doing that, we failed to take an oath. So I would ask both the audience and the petitioner as well, that anybody wishing to speak, that we be sworn in. Please stand to be sworn in, if I could ask the -- 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 present in the room were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Sorry. Mr. Wester, I failed to go through that. But go ahead. MR. BOSI: Did Mr. Schumacher want to provide disclosure? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Schumacher, provide disclosure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Conversation with Mike, staff materials, site visit, and I met with the applicant. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Good. Thank you. Troy, are we all set? MR. MILLER: I think so. I have to check something across the hall, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Should we hold off? MR. MILLER: Just give me two minutes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You called her Amy Taylor. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Amy Taylor. Amy Lockhart. What's the matter with me? MS. LOCKHART: I know. Well, you've known me a long time. I've been through different identities. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Different identity. All good. All right, we'll proceed. Thank you. Mr. Wester, it's all yours again. Sorry for the disruption. MR. WESTER: No problem. We'll be agile in our ways here. I know there's a lot of technology mediums in flow here. Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. Back on the PowerPoint presentation. This is staff controlling this. All right. I'll take it from here. I will continue forward with the review of what we talked about, activity centers, the list of all the activity centers, the Costco property within that same mixed-use activity center, the MPUD boundaries, the commercial tract within that MPUD boundary, and then the list of principal uses that are allowed on this property by right, currently listed as 90. And if you count any other commercial use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing, it's 90-plus. This is the list, Exhibit E, from the current MPUD that's adopted. There are currently 19 deviations that exist in that MPUD right now. The highlighted, No. 20 through 25, are the requests for the Costco facility. And it's not a request for the use. They request more on the form and the actual improvements on the property and the orientation. So it's not a use. So that just puts it into context. You have property in play here, and there -- at times there's a due process to ask and request for relief, if you can kind of justify that through the code, and we've got five here. So that just puts it into context of the -- continuing of the MPUD in Hacienda Lakes. This is the depiction here of the Costco wholesale facility in its environment. Really, it's an engineering plan overlay over the aerial in the real-world environment. And you can see the various improvements. Let's see if -- I'll use the mouse here. You can see the various improvements around there with the 7-Eleven more notably across. And the current criteria/metric for the review for an ASW is property line to property line. So you can see that there, the depiction July 17, 2025 Page 10 of 82 of 132 feet from the 7-Eleven. The gas facility is currently in this far western, far northwestern part of the overall site, and we'll be able to come back to that. This is a -- the PDI site plan. It is -- it has been under review for some time at the county, and it also marries up concurrent with our SDP review. As we noted, the traffic assessment is not part of the PDI request for the unsubstantial change nor the ASW, but it is part of the SDP, and this is the site engineering plan that is going with this PDI request, noting several variances and waivers asked for. The Costco gas facility and the existing 7-Eleven are separated by Rattlesnake Hammock right-of-way, a four-lane divided arterial, and that is in the code, an accepted manmade boundary reducing the impacts per the LDC. The Costco gas facility is member based. It's associated with the Costco wholesale store. The Costco gas facility is not the same as many other conventional service stations in the area, and it should be noted that the 7-Eleven operates on a 24/7 basis. The MPUD commercial parcels in the adjacent parcels are well planned to provide adequate separation and transition between various intensities and densities, including height. The planned Costco project is adequately separated from residential uses by buffers, easements, ponds, existing buildings, for example, the four-story medical building to our south, and the five-story Ekos Cadenza adult complex just to our east, and the FP&L power poles, power lines, and easement road all separate our unified development plan from the other uses nearby. The granting of the distance waiver will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses. The proposed Costco gas facility's located on a commercially -- on a commercial parcel in an activity center in the Hacienda Lakes PUD. Relief from the maximum height. This is the relief for Request No. 1 in the PDI specifically. So maximum light -- height -- pole height is 25 feet. We are asking for a height of 36.5 feet which actually reduces the number of poles on the property by 13. So instead of having a pole forest in the human scale environment, when you pull in the property, there would be 13 less poles that you have to stare at. Now, we will still have light screening and meet the photometric standards at the property edges. The property -- at the property edges and the curb, it is 0.0 on the photometric plan, even with 36-and-a-half-foot light poles. The relief from the additional requirement to obtain a variance and provide double the interior landscaping if the commercial project includes more than 120 of the required parking. The relief will not require a variance to allow the normal landscape requirements to apply to this commercial property. The justification in that is about 149 spaces are depicted as an overflow in the FP&L easement. And we can go back to the site plan if needed, but there is an FP&L easement that is basically property overflow for the parking. So we have -- 670 spaces are proposed outside the FP&L easement, and that's about 103 of the parking percentage ratio, not 120 percent. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Wester, just for our recorder -- MR. WESTER: Slow down? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, a little bit. Thank you. MR. WESTER: I'm being too timely. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, we -- MR. WESTER: I get it. I talked with her before. I will slow down. Relief from the minimum loading space required, the current requirement, I believe, is up to eight spaces, and Costco knows best on how many loading spaces they need for their facility, and so we've asked for a total of five. So we have four at the store itself and then one at the gas facility. Fourth is a deviation from the LDC for relief from the facade requirement of -- for 15 percent of glazing glass on primary facades for reduction of -- from the total of 45 percent of all facades to include now 12 percent glazing and 11 percent planted trellis. July 17, 2025 Page 11 of 82 So what does that mean in the real world? Well, the glazing standard is there to break up the mass of the building, right? It's to provide some visual relief and some context and some more visual interest, and we do that through an accepted methodology that's already been approved by the county architect as part of this application to provide a planted, structurally attached trellis feature along the building in lieu of certain glazing standards. So we still meet the spirit and intent of breaking up that massing of the building. The next one, again, is a relief from the required variations in building facades greater than 150 feet for a break in massing. For the variation on the massing, the structurally attached planted trellises also provide an elevation breakout for visual interest. So variations along the facade. They are also strategically placed to work with the project's program while contributing to the architectural aesthetics and meeting the spirit and intent of the requirement. So Items No. 4 and 5 kind of go together with the glazing and the requirement for the 150-foot length of the building facades. The sixth is a relief from the max signage square foot requirement in nonresidential districts for a total overage of 367 square feet over the maximum combined 750. This signage square foot increase is commensurate with the size of the building face for increased visibility for promotion, orientation, and way finding. Additionally, no other signage, including pole signs, ground signs and the like, projecting signs, or other are proposed on this site. Costco only puts signs on the building; that's it. And they're not interior -- interiorly illuminated. They have an exterior ambient lighting on the outside. And so no Costco sign on the east elevation. We've actually removed that, and that's the east elevation basically facing the mass of the residential community. And, finally, a request for the mass transit requirement. Currently CAT requires the first in the door, basically, at this facility to provide a CAT stop shelter, and we've asked that to be deferred to the retail outparcels on this same exact parcel. So most folks that visit a Costco facility don't arrive by bus. They arrive by POV or single occupancy vehicle. And so they arrive by that, do their shopping, and then leave, not necessarily by bus. So it's really putting a transit facility through the parking lot, and then a bus stop is really kind of inefficient more -- we asked for it to be deferred to the next step, which would be the next -- on Collier, there's an outparcel there on four acres that is actually part of this property but to be determined on what would go there. We've maxed it out with a yield for about 45,000 square feet potentially, but we've asked for that next iteration of those -- development of that outparcel to then be obligated by the developer to put that CAT facility in. This is a depiction of the gas separation, again, showing the criteria in the metric which is 132 feet property line to property line, okay. In reality, the canopy where you actually dispense the fuels at the 7-Eleven and the canopy where you dispense the fuels at the Costco is actually 400 feet away from each other. If you count where the gas tanks are installed underground, it's over 500 feet away from each other. So the metric is almost a hardship in itself because you're asking it to go from property line to property line as opposed to the actual use of that gas facility. That's the crux of this waiver. More importantly, we discussed in the code it specifically describes a manmade physical separation, which in this case is the four-lane divided infrastructure road of Rattlesnake Hammock. This is our parking demand metrics, and so what it shows is -- the blue is showing the parking in the main field of the Costco facility, and then the purple or the pink is the overflow, and that is the crux of the request for the 120 percent overage. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just to interrupt, the blue is the -- what is mandatory calculated requirement. MR. WESTER: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the purple or magenta is -- you're in excess? MR. WESTER: That's right. And so the blue is basically the 103 percent of the code. The metric is 120 percent. When July 17, 2025 Page 12 of 82 you go over 120 percent of that parking requirement, you have to provide double the landscape -- landscaping in the internal vehicular-use areas. So we've asked for a waiver from that internal vehicular-use area landscaping for our parking needs. This -- the elevation is -- this is the signage elevation, and it shows some of the trellis work there, but this is depicting the four different elevations, including the entry elevation. The entry elevation is actually facing to the northeast, if you will. So it's got its own signage. But we took the sign off of -- the Costco sign off of the east elevation. The only signage that exists on the east elevation is over the tire center, okay. And so that is the only one, and it's really more for way finding. This is a depiction of the current FP&L easement. It's over 150 feet wide. It separates us on the far eastern edge of the property. And deeper into this easement will be the overflow parking that will be obviously engineered as part of the surface parking lot. This is showing the five-story Cadenza, Ekos Cadenza multifamily, which is the -- most -- at this point the immediately abutting improvement between us and the neighboring residents. This is also showing that same Ekos Cadenza, again, showing the height and massing and the orientation of kind of concentric rings. When you talk about planning, intensity at the intersection goes from commercial, then to typically multifamily, then to single-family. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: This is a view from what parking lot? MR. WESTER: This is a view from the hospital parking lot, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: From the hospital parking lot. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. And you can see here -- in the distance you can see the rooftops of some of the single-family homes in the neighborhood abutting the most recently built Ekos Cadenza, and this is the parking lot of the hospital itself separated by the pond. This is the four-story nursing facility. Again, the context of this is the Costco facility is no higher than 34 feet at its peak, and that's some of the parapets. These are four- and five-story buildings that are separate between us and the nearest residential -- single-family residential, I should say. Here are the different elevation perspectives, again, showing the signage. The first one to the top left is the main entry to Costco. So that's facing kind of essentially the northeast elevation. Then we've got the north elevation. I'd like you to note also the loading dock. The loading dock for the trucks that visit the site to reload the store are the furthest away from the residential right now, okay. They're on the far western side of the entire building. The south elevation shows the signage there. That is the corner that actually would face Collier and the hospital, if you will, and then the east elevation where we've taken off that Costco signage which faces, generally, the mass of the residential. And then here's a -- kind of a pulled-out perspective. I think we've all seen this before, but it shows the gas facility; all of the queuing lanes associated with the gas facility, which are independent from the main parking fields; the parking itself; the landscaping; the building itself; and then the perspective of the environment behind it. In summary and conclusion, the use is allowed by right in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the use of the predetermined/approved activity center at the Collier/Rattlesnake Hammock intersection node. The square footage and vehicle trips and acreage in the activity center are below the approved thresholds both in the Comprehensive Plan and the approved thresholds in the MPUD. The ASW and the PUD [sic] requests are insubstantial and minor and based on relief from certain Land Development Code MPUD provisions related to orientation, layout, and certain improvements. The requests are not about the use which is allowed by right. The Collier County staff report supports the requests and recommends approval. This Costco request -- the Costco requests are commensurate with the previously requested needs by others over the past years for 19 waivers and deviations cumulatively in the same Hacienda Lakes MPUD for certain improvements and flexibility for individuals parcels under development. July 17, 2025 Page 13 of 82 I thank you for your consideration of this approval, and I hand it back to you for questions and answers and the public. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have a questions before I turn it over to my colleagues. Can you go back to the picture -- the aerial that shows -- kind of the oblique view? Because what I want to clarify, if that even shows, the lights. I don't think you see the lights on there. And I didn't know if you had an example of the type of light fixture comparison to what -- MR. WESTER: It's an LED light fixture, and it will have certain screening to it. But the photometrics are that it will not have point source light bleed over into the adjacent properties, and we have a photometrics plan that is part of our SDP package for our site development plan review. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The light poles are on each of those islands? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. Prominently, most of the islands, correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you for your presentation. Is it possible to briefly go over those six items for variance and compare the detail within that variance to what probably most of, if not all of us, are familiar with at the current Costco. For example, the light pole light. What is it at the current Costco? And then just kind of run down those other five. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. I will try my best. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Appreciate that. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. So per your request, I've got this aerial image up, and it shows the existing Costco facility and bounded by the property owned by Costco. You can see this site specifically is, as I'll call it, commingled with a lot of other big box users, right? The parking, the access, the building itself actually touches other uses on the property in that kind of -- we'll call it a strip center. And so based on its nature of that, for instance, the glazing standard, this has a different kind of glazing standard because you wouldn't be putting a signage or a glazing standard on a building that's attached to another in that strip center. We're asking for certain relief from that glazing standard for our property in the current request. So there are some vast differences with this. And it's really the trend over the last 25 or 30 years with Costco where they prefer to be in their own parcel, right, so they can control their future plan needs and not only meet their demand for their guests and patrons. But this site, I don't know if we have a height on the light pole heights in there. We think they're about the same. It's been a typical standard for a while. Now, you can imagine that Costco's quite old, 26 years old, plus or minus. LED didn't exist back then, right? So I believe they've been retrofitted with LED, so that is the new technology. But it still meets the photometric standards in play. This is in its own -- has its own kind of zoning relations in play with this strip center. And staff can go into that if needed. But the parking field here, it's a much smaller Costco. This is 140,000, plus or minus, and it has roughly 667 parking spaces. The new request is 162- to 165,000 square feet, right, and we have 800-plus parking spaces. So the growth in demand is also commensurate with the parking for -- or the queuing and stacking for the gas facility. This doesn't have as many gas pumps as the currently request. We've got -- currently slated for 24 fueling positions under the canopy. And so this is a little different. And then, of course, the stacking and queuing is commensurate with the growth of Costco over time as well. So some of the others are the overflow parking here. This one had 667 parking spaces. I don't know if that exceeded the 120 percent of that ratio for landscaping back then, which again, the requirement is if you trip 120 percent, you have to double your landscaping on the interior islands. Not the perimeter. We're not asking for a waiver for anything at the perimeter, but the landscape islands. So I don't know if that was in play here 26 years ago. But the building massing doesn't really apply to this, again, because it's attached to another July 17, 2025 Page 14 of 82 part of the strip center, if you will. So not only the parking, not only the site development, the orientation and the unified development plan is really commingled with a lot of other brick-and-mortar elements in this shopping center, which make it vastly different from the site that's under request now, and that's -- the current trend with Costco is to have your own, let's call it, 25 acres of property to be able to grow and have some breathing room on the property for your demand and your own needs, as opposed to be commingled with other access points and parking fields and shopping carts from other users like Best Buy and the like. Hopefully that answers your question in a general sense. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It does. It gives me a little bit of a comparison from a 26-year-old facility to a brand-new one, newer technology, newer request. So thank you. I appreciate it. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir, and it should be noted, too, that Costco knows how to -- we all know Costco's track record. It's a first-rate facility, very clean. They operate the grounds immaculately. And it's the same here. The orientation on our property, the requests are not about a use. It's about some of the improvements, some of the aesthetics as far as what we're supplementing for the planted trellises versus the glazing, but more important, the orientation. It should be noted that the gas facilities is far away as it could get from the residential, okay? And by putting it there, that's essentially why we're asking for a waiver from the 132 feet, but more importantly, as I showed, we're 400 feet from canopy to canopy, and if you count the actual fuel tanks, it's over 500 feet. That gets it close to more of a real-world metric for the actual use, and -- but Costco knows how to do this best. It's really an orientation thing on the request that we're asking for now. So we ask for your consideration on the approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you, Brad, for your presentation. And I'll want to hear from staff about this. But why is the 150-feet break being requested as a relief? I don't know if I should ask it now or wait till staff does its report, Chair? MR. BOSI: Can you -- I'm sorry. Can you -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's okay. I just wanted to understand why Deviation No. 5 is being requested. Why are they requesting the relief on the 150-feet break that's required? MR. WESTER: I'll answer it. So the building itself is longer than that, so inherently, we would have to provide some type of either break in the building itself architecturally, which doesn't fit the actual demised area of the building space and the needs for Costco. It really boils down to how do you build the Costco from inside out? All the warehouse builds from inside out for space planning, and then you come up with an envelope. That envelope determines how much face or facade you have on that building. And then we're over that 150-foot threshold. So we've got some variations in the building, and then the height and the massing, but more importantly, the code standard required us to have certain things. And what we're doing is adding Deviation No. 23 and Deviation No. 24 to provide that mitigated element through planted trellises instead of the glazing standard and the 150-foot standard by providing other architectural elements that may impede on the actual envelope of the building. So I hope that make sense. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So, yeah, the intent of the 150-foot break is so that you don't see this massive, long structure. MR. WESTER: Correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But you're saying that you're going to break it up with trellises. Do you have a photo of that? MR. WESTER: I sure do, yeah. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle, what happened probably -- and probably Ray is even aware of this. This was even before Mike's time. About, what, 25 years ago the first real big box July 17, 2025 Page 15 of 82 we dealt with in the county, and it was just a mass of a building. There was a pretty concerted effort to create architectural standards. We do not have an architectural review board. For the public's interest, we don't -- we do not have an architectural review committee. The city does; we do not. But we have very strict architectural standards that they are required to comply with, and that's part of the staff review. That's what he's asking for relief of, certain areas, and he'll show -- again, I know about this, but he'll show the trellises on here, that that is a physical feature to break up, visually, the mass of the building. MR. WESTER: That's correct. Brad Wester, Driver, McAfee. So you see this depiction here. These are the renderings, and these kind of marry up with the site plan and the elevations and everything, and this is what we've proposed for the county. You can see here the variations in massing both in not only in paint scheme, but the type of finishes, the type of elevation parapets, the variations on the roofline itself, but more importantly, the requirement was to do almost half the building in windows, fake windows, basically, right? So instead of doing that glazing standard, that's -- an architectural term for windows is glazing. So instead of that architectural glazing standard, we've asked -- and it's a mitigative element that the county architect has agreed to is these planted structural trellises. So they're attached to the building. They kind of break up when you look down the building and you look at it from the center mass. It actually breaks up that vista and provides some visual relief and interest, and that's really the overarching theme of why you'd want that 150 foot, and then the glazing standard is to provide some visual interest. And our building clearly does that. You see we've got windows on the very front. But windows around the sides are going to be supplemented with the planted trellises and the various elements that go with the different variations and the parapet heights and then the finishes and the paint scheme. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And some of those trellises are actually -- MR. WESTER: Wider than that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- so many feet off the building, correct? MR. WESTER: That's correct. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do you have a picture of that? I know there was some in the -- our packet. MR. WESTER: I'll point to it right here. You can see the trellises. Some pull out, and you can see the shadowing here. This is one that comes out -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. WESTER: -- more from the building. These are ones that are attached just to the building. And so what I meant was when you look straight down the building from the side flush with it, you'll be able to see that variation when you look down, and that's really important for this angle as well because we do have the visibility from Collier, right? You can see the corner of the building as it marries up with the hospital building, and then our property itself with the westmost facing elevation. So hopefully that answers your question. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, that does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Can you go back to the other deviation about the relief on landscaping. I'm really big on landscaping, especially parking lots. And why are you having to go over the parking requirement? MR. WESTER: Because -- so Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. The parking requirement is anytime you go over 120 percent of a maximum parking, right? So in our case, we have 819 total spaces; 670 are in the main parking field, and 149 in the Florida Power & Light easement area. Just counting the 670, that's only 103 percent over. So we're July 17, 2025 Page 16 of 82 technically under that 120 percent threshold, but because we're putting -- the only thing you can put in that FP&L easement is something horizontal. So it could only be parking, and that is our overflow parking. The typical Costco standard is to have roughly 850 parking spaces at a facility of this size. And so the 149 spaces are in that easement, so we're asking for justification and a waiver from the interior landscaping standard which required us to double the landscaping. And the important thing to note is doubling that landscaping then conflicts with the lights poles. So then you have extra trees and extra things growing up into the light poles in various areas. We're not asking for a waiver from the perimeter landscaping or the buffer requirements around the entire perimeter of the property. It's the main standard -- 100 percent landscaping standard that's in play here for the parking lot itself as opposed to doubling it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. WESTER: Hopefully that makes sense. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. And then can you go back to Slide 30. MR. WESTER: Yes. This is the view from the parking lot of the hospital. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then is anything going to go there? MR. WESTER: No. That is the hospital property. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. WESTER: So I will -- if you'll oblige, I will go back to the aerial to get you oriented with where that image was taken. Okay. So that image that you just referenced is taken right here on this -- in this parking lot. See where my mouse is? So this is the four-story building where the nursing college is. This is the parking lots associated with the hospital, basically the easternmost portion of the hospital. This is their stormwater pond, and that picture was taken right here. So you see some of the parking lot, you see the stormwater pond, and then you see the rooftops of the single-family housing right there. An actual better picture would probably be this. So my cursor is right where that picture was taken. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And why did you include that slide in your presentation? MR. WESTER: That's important to note because of the massing of the building. So the massing of our building is basically -- it's very important not only from an orientation and a circulation and a way-finding element that Costco knows how to do best, but it also is important from the massing. It's closest to the hospital, right? The hospital already has improvements; multistory, large campus. That is as close to that property edge on the south side that you can get to our building itself. Then more importantly, the loading docks are furthest west from any residential, okay, and the gas is as far west as you can get from the residential with the exception of the multifamily across Rattlesnake Hammock. But the importance of that is the massing theme with all of the buildings in relation to the PUD. The PUD and the activities are set up so your node of your intersection at Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier has generally the most intense commercial or commercial-intensity types of uses. Then from there -- and Planning staff can back me up -- it transitions from there. It goes typically to another type of density or intensity, which could be other business parks and typically multifamily, and you actually see that here. So if you make a ring around our property -- here's a ring that goes around our property; there's the multifamily, there's the Cadenza Ekos, it goes around. Then you make another ring from a planning theory. It goes to single-family and less intense and less dense uses. So I wanted to point that out that it was a massing thing on where the property is oriented from a way finding as well. So when patrons and guests enter the property, they know exactly where to park, where to enter the building. They're not driving around circulating without understanding exactly where to go. And then from an aerial standpoint, it really fits and furthers July 17, 2025 Page 17 of 82 the activity center use criteria and the PUD master development plan from a unified development standpoint on where we have the building and the parking located. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is that it? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is a question for Mike, but I don't know if it's in your presentation. I'd like to understand more of this 500 feet, why is it property line to property line? Why is -- why is it not gas tank to gas tank if it's a safety issue? It just seems like an arbitrary number if you just -- even if they move the gas facility on their layout, it won't change the code that they're trying to comply with. If it's in your presentation, I can wait, but I think we need to understand it better. MR. BOSI: And Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And I'll have to admit that the origins of the automobile service station waiver is rooted within the antiquated term of a service station, meaning at the time that this was -- this was adopted as a regulation, gas stations used to have service stations associated with them. For our younger folks, they probably don't understand what that means. It means they actually had repair at gas stations. Those are no longer how gas stations function nor operate. So the only thing -- what I could provide to you, the concern was gas stations have a high frequency of visitations, of trip -- trip attraction, I should say. And when they are located in close proximity, the intensity of that trip attraction can create issues within the right-of-way within the transportation system. And one of the things that they were really trying to make sure is if gas stations were going to be in close proximity together, it was going to create a -- it would provide for a condition that you would not have individual cars backing up into the right-of-way. Think of the '70 -- the late '70s energy issues where people had to wait long periods of time back into -- well, those were some of the things that influenced the decision for the separation requirements. A lot of the terms that you see within the criteria are a little bit antiquated in terms of how gas stations do work, but that is really the crux of it, to make sure that the traffic associated with these two gas stations were not going to create issues that were going to inhibit the movement of cars within the right-of-way, because that's what the intention of that right-of-way was for. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So traffic-based, not safety-based tank to tank or anything? MR. BOSI: It really is. It's about the traffic impact and how those arrangements for when you have gas stations in close proximity because of the intensities that are associated with gas stations. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that one of those LDC amendment meetings that we should have to talk about changing that? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It makes it harder for us to -- if we're outdated. MR. BOSI: And I -- the criteria though, the four criteria there are -- I mean, are pretty digestible and pretty understandable, but it really is to make sure that gas stations in close proximity are not going to create situations towards where they won't be able to handle the trips associated with this -- with the gas stations in proximity. Based upon the physical arrangement of the right-of-way; that's the criteria. What physical criteria did that -- these two gas stations or gas stations being proposed will have towards each other. And in this case, the applicant's burden is to show that the configuration does not create the situation that we're trying to avoid. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MR. WESTER: If I may, Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. I'll further that. In the code it specifically states, you know, a manmade kind of separation. In this case it's the four-lane divided Rattlesnake Hammock Road, which is the physical separation July 17, 2025 Page 18 of 82 of these two uses. But more importantly, outside of that are other metrics that really need to be considered are this is a member-based gas facility, and it's just gas. It's not a car wash. Unlike the -- unlike the current 7-Eleven, right, which operates 24 hours, we also have different operating hours standards, right? Our operating hours are very commensurate with the warehouse itself. They stay open an hour and a half after the warehouse for employees and guests to get out of the warehouse after it's closed and go fuel up and leave. And then, more importantly, the separation criteria here. Again, it's parcel to parcel. Could you take this gas facility and put it in its own parcel and play the game of moving it around somewhere else to get it 500 feet away, sure, but would that fit the orientation and the safety of the site that Costco knows best? No, it wouldn't. So these are metrics that we're asking for consideration, but more importantly, within the code, I believe we get that standard showing that there's a very physical separation on this case. And so we ask for your request [sic] for approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Sparrazza, I think you were next. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. A question back for Mike. Mike, this is not the first time an ASW has ever been requested, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. And in other -- in other applications, we've actually seen the same circumstances. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The -- I think it's a 7-Eleven on -- let me get this right -- Rattlesnake Hammock and 41 has about 180, might be 210 feet from parcel to parcel that goes across the street for the Wawa station that's further south on 41, but that also needed an ASW. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Even though it's further down. So these ASWs are not one in a million. They come up often, correct? MR. BOSI: And I will point out the existing 7-Eleven was granted an ASW from the RaceTrac. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: From the RaceTrac across the street, correct. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. I just wanted -- and I'm not siding with one side or the other, but as Paul had stated, maybe it's time that some antiquated specifications be reviewed and looked at, and this certainly looks like one that could be at least under consideration to be reviewed, and that's to also let the public know this isn't, "Oh, my gosh. He's asking for an ASW, and we've never granted it before." Very commonly are granted, correct? MR. BOSI: If they satisfy the -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: The requirements, right. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Hi. Yeah, just a couple questions. You cited a bunch of -- a bunch of complexes around, surrounding the area. What is the total height of the Costco? MR. WESTER: Thirty-four feet max. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Thirty-four feet. And your lights poles are 36 and a half feet, so they're much -- they're a little larger than your -- MR. WESTER: Slightly, yes. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: You're asking for 11 and a half feet increase on your existing. Now, are these more stout, more robust? Do you have any pictures of these light poles? My only concern is really the light pollution. I know it says it's less light pollution, but is it by 1 percent at the cost of these big, huge, robust light poles, or is it just a significant reduction? Because I don't have that report. July 17, 2025 Page 19 of 82 MR. WESTER: I understand. Yes. I don't have an exhibit that shows the light pole itself. I believe we did submit one to staff, but I don't have one in my presentation. Are they robust? Yes. Do they have a certain wind load standard? Absolutely. Is it a high-efficiency LED technology? Yes. Will they be screened from the point source from the adjacent uses nearby? Yes, 100 percent. And do they meet and exceed the code standard for the photometrics at the property edge? Yes. That is the standard. And so we've got a photometrics plan that's part of our SDP package right now, and it shows that definitively with science. But as far as light pollution, there's not much I can comment to you because the code really has a standard in there, and it says point source of the light element itself, light bleed into neighborhoods, and so the standard is really met through a photometrics plan itself. But more importantly, we reduce it by up to 13 poles throughout the property. So at the human scale, when you look at it from the plan view, just top down, it may not -- it may not look like it makes much of a difference. But from the human scale, when you drive onto the property, you'll have 13 less light poles out there, which is a really big deal. You'll have more landscaping to look at and less light poles. They'll be higher. But 11 -- 11 feet is relatively discernible [sic] from the human-scale environment when you pull onto the property considering it's 13 less light poles. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: My only concern is that you're asking for a deviation of less landscaping around these light poles, but these light poles are going to be much more thicker and robust to handle the additional 11 and a half feet. MR. WESTER: And there's a correction. We're not asking for less landscaping. We're not asking for a deviation from the code itself; meeting the under-120-percent standard in the parking area. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's what I thought, too. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah, it's -- MR. WESTER: So we're not -- we still meet the landscape code for all of the internal vehicular use areas, the parking islands and the like. We're just not doubling them because of the 120 percent standard. So we still have landscaping. As a matter of fact, the 36-foot poles will be in less conflict with the landscaping and vegetation and trees in the property. But more importantly, I wanted to point out we are 100 percent adhering to the landscaping code. We're just asking for a waiver to not provide double the amount of landscaping in only the landscape islands. Not the perimeter, not the buffers, not anywhere else. So that's a significant point to this. It's not one versus the other, a 36-foot light pole and then no landscaping. That's not the case at all. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Commissioner [sic] Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: How many employees do -- would this typical size Costco have? MR. WESTER: That is a great question, and I have the answer because I have my experts with me. So just to let you know, if I can't answer the question, I have my experts. I have my civil engineer and my traffic engineer. We've got two architects. We've got three Costco executives with me here as well. So if I don't have the answer, I can get it. And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but do we have that number? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Depending on time of year, anywhere from 250 to 350 employees. MR. WESTER: I will state that, 250 to 350 employees. MS. LOCKHART: Well, you've asked, and I think the county has agreed to the deviation of the bus stop, the CAT facility. I don't understand why. You could probably have less parking requirement. You would have 350 employees that would be able to -- a percentage of them would be able to take the bus to work. Also, you do have things like, I'm sure, in some Costcos, optical, pharmacy where there would be a quick stop that you wouldn't have to carry numbers of packages. Also, the outparcel may be retail, too. So I guess I'm just not understanding the justification of it being retail and not having a bus stop requirement for this -- for the first property July 17, 2025 Page 20 of 82 that gets developed. MR. BOSI: And let me address that. And this is an issue that staff was going to bring up. The bus stop request was not analyzed within the PDI request. I was just looking through the material that has been submitted to staff. We have never -- we haven't had the bus stop request presented to us within the PDI, so staff is not supporting that deviation. MS. LOCKHART: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. No other questions. And then we're going to proceed with public speakers. And I point out, just to note, we're going to take a break approximately at 10:30. So I think we'll -- we're going to do staff. Anything from staff? MR. BOSI: I'll put on the record -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, go ahead. MR. BOSI: For the ASW, staff has reviewed it against the criteria, and it is recommended -- a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners of approval. For the PDI, we have reviewed the request. The one request that we have not reviewed was the request for the bus stop to be deferred to a further use of the outparcel. So for that, we do not support that. The other PDI request staff is supporting. If there's any questions you have within our staff reports for either petition, I'm happy to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm confused, because I don't recall ever reading about the deviation for the bus stop, and I heard it during the presentation, so... MR. BOSI: Well, that -- staff was a little surprised, too, and was going to talk with the applicant, that we haven't had the opportunity even to review it. It may have come up during their SDP review, and it's something that they -- it's just we haven't had -- we haven't been presented with that opportunity to review it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It is listed in the ordinance Attachment Page 2. MR. WESTER: And this is Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. We submitted all those requests at the beginning, very beginning, and we were asked to not put that as one of the waivers in the PDI but ask as a text change to the PUD to defer that bus stop to the next set of retail uses as opposed to the Costco use. So it would be deferred, owner's obligation, but for the outparcel development. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Then go back to your site overview, because I want to -- I did ask you this when we met. For my colleagues, clarify the outparcels. And right now, though you have not technically closed on the property, meaning you have an option to buy it, you've not closed, but those outparcels will be under the control of the Costco entity? MR. WESTER: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And when those -- what you're stating is when those are developed, whatever they may be, drugstore whatever -- I don't know what's going to go in there. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That you're saying that you'll comply, then, with the bus stop requirement. MR. WESTER: Correct. Yeah, that's more in commensurate with the variation of retail uses that would be on outparcel development as opposed to one larger store like this with a gas facility and then having the bus route right through the parking lot and then a bus stop commensurate with that. So we're not saying it's not going to be done. We're just asking it be deferred. And we were told to put it in its own exhibit as part of the review as opposed to a waiver. So that's why you don't see it listed as one of the waivers. But we were asked at the beginning to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Are you aware of any -- where the closest -- there's bus July 17, 2025 Page 21 of 82 services -- MR. WESTER: The hospital, yes, sir, to the south. The hospital has, I believe, a bus route [sic]. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There is a bus stop right at the hospital. MR. WESTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Now, the other question is the interconnect to the south connecting with the hospital, could you clarify that for the record? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. The Costco facility currently has three ingress/egress points. Two are on Rattlesnake Hammock, and one is through the hospital property on the loop road, and it will take the traffic that decides to utilize that loop road out to the intersection, the traffic light controlled intersection there at the hospital. And we have a signed agreement from the hospital itself for that type of easement across that property. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Mike, do you have anything else for staff? MR. BOSI: Nothing else from staff's perspective. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I'm going to -- I'm going to choose to take a break now before we start public comment, because then I would ask that the applicant be prepared for any rebuttal, and of course, we will ask questions. And for the public, certainly we're here to listen. At times we may stop your presentation and ask you a question as well but just for clarification. But I want to make sure our staff in the back, they're prepared. If there are any folks who have not signed up yet to be a speaker, please fill out a speaker slip, and if you're going to cede your time to another speaker or if you hired a consultant or have someone in a management team or your HOA, whomever you may have, that we know who you ceded the time to so I can keep track of the time so we can move this meeting fairly smoothly. So with that, any other questions from my colleagues up here? COMMISSIONER SHEA: How many speakers do we have signed up? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many speakers do we have? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there's 21, approximately. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Twenty-one speakers. And before we go, Chuck; do you have any comments or questions, Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, sir. I'm still here. I don't have any questions or comments. I'm good right now. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll save them towards the end. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Just interrupt when you have a question because I don't -- I don't have anything to light up to let me know if you have a question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I will do so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. So with that, we'll take a 15-minute break, and we'll resume. Go ahead, Mike, you want to -- you're good. Okay. We'll take a 15-minute break. Again, please, if you have any -- if you're going to speak, please fill out a questionnaire [sic]. Thank you -- or speaker slip. (A recess was had from 10:16 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. May I please ask everybody to take their seat. Before I open public comment -- because I know there's going to be a lot of questions about traffic, and just to clear the air, Jaime, could I ask if you could come up, introduce yourself, and explain when and how and at what stage the traffic analysis is completed. Thank you. MS. COOK: Good morning, Jaime Cook, for the record, director of Development Review at Growth Management/Community Development. So the petitions that you're hearing today are typically the first step in any application, similar to a rezoning petition or a Growth Management Plan amendment. If this -- if these July 17, 2025 Page 22 of 82 petitions were to be approved, the next step for the developer is a Site Development Plan. The Site Development Plan looks at basically how the entire site is laid out, everything from the building footprint to the stormwater design, transportation impacts, how the utilities are run, any environmental impacts, architecture, all of those sorts of things. The applicant has submitted the Site Development Plan, and it has gone through the first review. As part of that review, the -- they're required to submit a Transportation Impact Statement, or a TIS, which looks at the operational aspects of the site and the surrounding roadways. So it looks at the turning lane movements -- turning movements, whether turn lanes are required, stoplights are required, all of those sorts of operational considerations that go into the transportation review. In looking at the transportation reviewer's review for that first review, there are -- there were a significant number of comments, both design as far as turn lanes, widths, things like that, as well as the TIS. So there are still questions that staff is asking, and neither the TIS or the proposed improvements for the roadway system have been approved at this point. So it will still need to go through further review. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then the other question, standpoint of right now there are no plans for Rattlesnake to go further east, because that's preserve lands. It's protected lands in accordance with the county. MS. COOK: That is correct. So you can see this right here is the proposed Costco site. And I'm sorry for the people who live in Hacienda, I always get these backwards. Esplanade and Azure are here, and then the road ends about here where Azure's entrance is. And, Ms. Lockhart, your school site is about here. Past that is lands that have been put into conservation easements or are sending lands and cannot be developed. What Transportation's proposal is is there is a proposed road here, Benfield, that will extend north from here, but there will be nothing further east. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And with that, can I have the first public comment, please. MR. SABO: Yeah. Mr. Chair -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I would ask the public speakers, please stage yourself at each of the lecterns up here, or the podiums, so we can move along quickly. And there was one comment I wanted to make. I have been talking to one of the commissioners for this area, and there's been a lot of interest or expressed interest of having commissioners attend this meeting. Typically, we -- they do not attend this meeting. If they do, they may just come sit in the back and listen, but they typically do not come to the Planning Commission meeting. We are an advisory meeting. We are appointed by the commissioners, and we are advisors to help them move through the process as far as the decision process. But we are advisory only. We are not the approval process. And so typically, if a commissioner has a question, they will contact us as to what took place during the meeting, or we'll contact them. But they typically do not physically attend this meeting. But they certainly can, but typically they do not, because if they attend, it gets into a Sunshine issue with more than one commissioner attending the meeting and Sunshine Laws and Florida laws. But with that, first public speaker, please. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have several people that are ceding time to another speaker. So if you're ceding time, please stay here so we can confirm that you are here ceding time. The four people who have time ceded are Frank CiPolla, Milt Spokojny, Thomas Rath, and Herman Diebler. We're going to start with Frank CiPolla. And he was ceded time by Robert Kasler. Is Kasler here? July 17, 2025 Page 23 of 82 (Raises hand.) MR. KASLER: I'm here. MR. SABO: And then next speaker is Milt Spokojny. And he has 30 minutes, but I'll go through that when Mr. CiPolla's done. MR. CiPOLLA: Commissioners, good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Are you looking at all 30 minutes? MR. CiPOLLA: No. I'm going to probably take about 10 minutes or so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's only got one ceded. MR. CiPOLLA: I only have one person. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: One ceded. All right. MR. CiPOLLA: Milt is going to take the rest. I'd like to use my time, please, to give you a 30,000-foot view of the concerns that the communities have. And by the way, it's Frank CiPolla, and I'm the spokesperson for the Costco core opposition group which represents residents in Azure as well as Hacienda Lakes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And are you a resident, or you were hired -- you were hired? MR. CiPOLLA: No, no. I'm a resident. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. CiPOLLA: I'm going to give the greatest hits. Again, indulge me. And then my colleague, Milt, is going to come up here, is going to drill down to what we believe is a flawed application. We've seen several things, and Milt will elaborate on that. First of all, let me say we are not anti-Costco, none of us is. We are not antigrowth. We are not antibusiness. We just believe that this particular site for the Costco is not the right site. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only Costco that is being proposed in the United States of America that is not only up against a residential community but next to a hospital, Physicians Regional. And when I say "next to a hospital," I don't mean down the street from a hospital. I mean right next door to the hospital, as you saw on that map. You did not want us to touch on the traffic. For many of the residents of our communities traffic is important, so again, indulge me if you may. First, from what we understand, the traffic study by Costco was done during the offseason when most of the residents are up north. And in addition to everything else, tourists are not in the area as well. So we're looking at -- and they say they have a formula, and more power to them. I don't think that formula, however, adequately takes into account the 2,700 new apartments and condominiums that are being constructed right next to the 7-Eleven, as well, a mile north, the Caymas and Seven Shores community where there will be additional hundreds of homes. I don't think there's a formula that takes that into account. Now, they can estimate. They can guesstimate, but I don't think there's a formula that takes that into account. Not to mention the elementary school and all the traffic that will be part of that. And we found out today as well that 250 employees will be there working. That's an additional number of cars. By Costco's own admission, 4,500 vehicles will be using this very busy corner every single day; 4,500 vehicles on that corner. This is already a busy corner. We've seen at least two deaths in the last month. We've seen accidents. And I've said this on television -- I'll say it again. And this is something you need to take in mind as we go forward -- if you approve this, this is only going to lead to more accidents, injury, and death. It's just a matter of time. Did an interview yesterday with one of the reporters here, at that corner, three young kids tooling around on bicycles, could you imagine the traffic tenfold when they're tooling around on bicycles? Traffic is the issue. We may not have the opportunity to speak about it at length, but traffic is certainly the issue. Costco has said that this monstrosity of a warehouse and the gas stations [sic] will require July 17, 2025 Page 24 of 82 round-the-clock deliveries. They've said that. Adding to the noise pollution. You've discussed briefly the light pollution. The lighting is actually going to be taller than the building. So we're looking, as communities, noise and light pollution 24 hours a day; trucks delivering at all hours of the day and night. To make matters worse, as you saw from the map there -- and they've just added an entrance around the hospital which apparently just happened in the last several days. We had no idea about that. But the major entrances and exits are going to be on Rattlesnake [sic] Road. That means -- and I want you to think about this for a moment -- 4,500 vehicles, theoretically, will be lining up in that turning lane to get on Rattlesnake, not off Collier like the 7-Eleven, which has the bridge, but Rattlesnake Hammock Road. There will be a new light there. We need to get out of our community quickly sometimes, and someone will touch on that when they get up and speak here. Let's discuss the gas pumps for a moment. The application -- and we just found out a moment ago -- calls for 24 gas pumps. Not more than a few months ago it was 15, then it became 17, and now it's 24 gas pumps. We don't know what the final number is going to be. And I don't think, with all due respect to my friends at Costco, they're being totally honest with us. As you know, there are already two major gas stations at that intersection. Costco claims that this club gas is a bit different; that there won't be as many cars getting gas. There's 24 pumps. I assume they think there will be a lot of cars getting gas. The request for that gas station is flawed in so many ways. And again, my colleague, Milt, who's also on the Costco core opposition group, is going to detail how that is flawed. Costco is a destination trip. If you're a club member, you're heading to Costco. It doesn't matter if it's a mile east, west, north, or south, you're going there to save a little money. We have identified just -- and we're not -- you know, we're not in the business of doing this, but we have identified at least three more suitable sites on the west, north, and south within a couple of miles, including 84 acres of land available at the corner of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard which is in a commercial area with sufficient roadway to accommodate everything instead of shoehorning this Costco into this residential area. I say again, this is the only Costco being proposed that we know of that is not only next to a hospital but next to a residential area. Please take that in mind. We are blessed in East Naples with a lot of open land. Corner of 41 and Collier Boulevard where they're building the new Home Depot, there's a Lowe's there. There's Walgreens. There's CVS. There's plenty of opportunity to put a Costco there away from a residential community, but Mr. Wester and his team insists -- insists on shoehorning it into that spot. Now, our friends at Costco, I think, deep down -- they're working for Costco, so they won't say this, but I think our friends at Costco know this is an idiotic location. They know it. And how do I know it? You say, Frank, how do you -- how do we know this? Because at the neighborhood information meeting earlier this year, 300 angry residents from communities surrounding this proposed site came to the meeting to express these and other concerns. And Mr. Wester, who was conducting the meeting, his only response to some of these very serious concerns we have was, "Well, the land is zoned commercial." You must have read about this. This was his answer. "Ah, sorry. The land is zoned commercial." That is not an answer. That is a dodge. That is a dodge to placate us and quiet us because he doesn't have an answer to that. You have the power to not recommend this to the county commissioners. Now, we would hope that you take all of our concerns -- I don't want to use all of my time because we have 21 people to speak. But I would hope that you would take all these concerns and more into consideration before you recommend this boondoggle. There are other spots with more land away from residential communities and not on a small Rattlesnake Road. So I would -- thank you for your time, and I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have a couple of questions. Let -- you state there are other July 17, 2025 Page 25 of 82 locations. We are not -- we are not in the business of -- MR. CiPOLLA: Understood. No, I understand. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- telling an applicant where they can and cannot go. MR. CiPOLLA: No, I understand it, Mr. Chairman. I -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just one question. If not Costco -- it's already zoned. You're asking us to deny something that we're not here to even consider or approve because it's already approved. If not Costco, some other major anchor store is going to go in there. It's not going to be a park. It's not going to be vacant land. It's zoned commercial. That's why I asked staff in the beginning to define the activity center and how our Future Land Use Map identified that site as where we wanted to concentrate -- we, being the county, wanted to concentrate growth and development. So I don't understand, when you say Costco, I mean, if not Costco -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Car dealer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- are you looking for a car dealership? Are you looking for a Best Buy? Are you looking for -- I'll throw other names out -- a Super Walmart? A Super Target? Something is going to go in there. MR. CiPOLLA: Let me respond. We're not antigrowth. We understand that Naples is growing. We understand that that's not going to be a park where -- with swings and benches. We understand that. We understand that. This is just the wrong frit, and I'll tell you why. You have the power to waive this ordinance that's on -- it's a state law that you cannot have a gas station within 500 feet of a property. It's 132 feet. Now, I know they're trying to make accommodations, but that's an ordinance. You've made accommodations before. We're asking you not to do this. In a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, maybe we'd have something like Founders Square, which is at the corner of Immokalee and Collier, mixed use, residential with stores, things we can use, restaurants, maybe a Target anchor store, something that we can all use. This is a monstrosity of a building. It's just an eyesore, and it's just going to wreak havoc at that corner with traffic. They don't even have -- Mr. Chairman, they don't even have plans to put a bridge over that small canal to get onto this property. They're shoving all the traffic, most of it at least, into this exit and entrance along Rattlesnake Road. That is our only exit to get to Collier Boulevard. People work. There will be traffic in the morning. People go back at home in the evening. There will be traffic in the evening. We understand that something will go there. We just say this particular Costco and its design is not that something. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And your background is, to base that -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I will -- I will ask everyone to leave. You do not applaud. This is not a popularity contest. If you applaud, I'm going to ask you to leave. I'm going to ask the security to come up and remove you from the -- from the hearing. We're not here for a popularity contest. We're here to listen to your concerns. What was the question I asked as far as -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: His background. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, your background, because I want to -- you made a lot of opinions, so I want my colleagues to understand. Are you a professional engineer -- MR. CiPOLLA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- or are you a -- MR. CiPOLLA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- land planner of some sort? MR. CiPOLLA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I just want to know and understand, because what you've stated is based on your opinion, not a professional background. MR. CiPOLLA: Well, you asked for -- you asked for testimony. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. July 17, 2025 Page 26 of 82 MR. CiPOLLA: I made some statements here. I don't think they can refute them. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. CiPOLLA: Okay. I made some statements. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll leave that up to the petitioner if they want to refute anything that you stated. So thank you for your time. MR. CiPOLLA: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Milt Spokojny, and if these folks can raise their hand; they ceded time. Jamie Pedraitor [sic]? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: One. George Weyant? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: All right. Robert Fitch? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: There we go. Richard Bikowski? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: Right there. And Rose Basir? Basin? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: All right. 30 minutes for Milt. MR. SPOKOJNY: I don't think I'll be that long, with all due respect. Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Good morning. MR. SPOKOJNY: My name's Milton Spokojny. By education, I'm an attorney. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SPOKOJNY: I'm licensed in the state of Michigan. I am not licensed in the state of Florida. I live in the state of Florida. My address is 8373 Promoso Court. That's in Hacienda Lakes Estates. I'm here representing myself as a homeowner in opposition to the construction of the Costco. My presentation is a bit technical in nature, so I'm going to be reading some of the ordinances, so bear with me. I want to make a point that Frank alluded to. You have the ability to deny this petition based on the fact of the impact on the residential area. The planners did not make any suggestion about that fourth criteria, the impact on the residential area. This has a tremendous impact on the residential area. It has 4,700 cars a day being funneled onto Rattlesnake Road as a result of this construction. And this is by their own traffic analysis. This is not my number. This is -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask you to move your microphone up so that our recorder -- because she hears that through the record -- through her earpiece as well. Thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: Am I in the right place now? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. So 4,700 cars a day are going to be funneled through Rattlesnake Road in addition to the existing traffic. They're also asking to put a traffic signal on the second exit where the Ekos apartments are. We have to stop there. We are a cul-de-sac. We cannot get access any other way than other -- through Rattlesnake Road. So there's a tremendous traffic impact. You said you can't analyze the traffic situation; that's not within your purview. But I will present to you documentation to show, ancillarily, that traffic is a very important component to your decision-making based on the ordinances in place. The first thing I'm going to talk about is I have several threshold arguments that, if you July 17, 2025 Page 27 of 82 believe my presentation, you should deny the petition. The first argument is to show that Costco does not have a market study, does not have a market study. That must be part of their application process. And I will read you the ordinance. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Let me stop you there. Application process for what we're dealing with, or an application process for zoning? MR. SPOKOJNY: For what you're dealing with. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we're dealing with a PDI. MR. SPOKOJNY: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Which is an insubstantial change. MR. SPOKOJNY: And 500-foot waiver. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Okay. I just want to clarify it because -- I know you're an attorney. I just want to clarify that if you're going to be trying to bring issues for us to consider, that it's based on what we're considering. So go ahead, thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: I'm not here acting as an attorney because I'm not licensed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. Well, I do respect your education, and I respect your background. MR. SPOKOJNY: I'm from the state of Michigan, so go blue. 5.05.05, facilities with fuel pumps, Section A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that facilities with fuel pumps do not adversely impact adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. The high levels of traffic, glare, intensity of the use associated with facilities with fuel pumps, particularly those open 24 hours, may be incompatible with surrounding uses, especially residential uses. Therefore, in the interest of protecting the health, safety, general welfare of the public, the following regulations shall apply to the location, layout, drainage operation, landscaping, parking, and permitted sales and service activities of facilities with fuel pumps. And Table 1 says, "Site design requirements. Separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps is 500 feet." Waiver of separation requirements: A, the BZA -- and by the BZA, the County Commission will be acting as the BZA when they ultimately hear this petition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. They act as the Board of Zoning Appeals, yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: Right. And the BZA, by resolution, can grant a waiver of part or all of the minimum separation requirements set forth if it is demonstrated by the applicant and determined by the BZA that the site proposed for development of a facility with fuel pumps is separated from another facility with fuel pumps by natural or manmade boundary structures or other features which offset or limit the necessity of such minimum distance requirement by the BZA. The BZA decisions to waive part or all of the distance requirements shall be based on the following factors. And I'm skipping over Factor 1, 2, 3. Factor 4 says, "Whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses, especially residential uses." They have not -- they have totally ignored that requirement. Costco just glosses over that requirement and says it doesn't have an impact. Well, it does have an impact. The fact that you have to funnel 4,700 cars into Rattlesnake Road, the fact that you have to put a traffic light that impedes our access into our cul-de-sac subdivisions has a tremendous impact on the residential area. I defy anybody to rebut that proposition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll leave that up to the petitioner. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. Section B, the Administrative Code shall establish -- I'm sorry. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for a facility with fuel pumps waiver request. The request for a facility fuel pumps waiver shall be based on the submittal of the required application, a site plan, and a written market study analysis which justifies a need for the additional facility with fuel pumps in the desired location. This market study is not for Costco. This market study is for the general public and for everybody else to know why a gas station is needed at this location. Like Frank said, we're not July 17, 2025 Page 28 of 82 opposed to the Costco. It's the gas station that's an issue. Quite frankly, it's the gas station, not the Costco itself. Collier County Land Development Code Administrative Procedures Manual: Facilities with fuel pump waiver. Reference: LDC Section 5.05.05, public notice. Okay. This section establishes applicability. It establishes a process to waive part or all of the minimum separation requirements for facilities with fuel pumps from other facilities with fuel pumps. This process is also known as the automobile service station waiver. The application must include the following: Number 7, a written market study analysis which justifies a need for additional facility with fuel pumps in a desired location. Number 11, a -- pre-application meeting notes. They have not submitted those as well. So they are deficient in No. 7 and No. 11 based on the ordinance requirements. You can't make an informed decision on this matter without a market study. You just can't make an informed decision without that market study; therefore, without the market study, Costco's application is deficient and must be denied. As I indicated, they also must, pursuant to the ordinance, provide their pre-application meeting notes. This is my next threshold argument, substantial change versus insubstantial change. They've asked for insubstantial changes, okay, based on the five or six different items they talked about. LDC, that's the ordinance, Section 10.02.13 indicates changes and amendments. There are three types of changes to a PUD ordinance: Substantial, insubstantial, and minor. Substantial changes, any substantial changes to an approved PUD ordinance shall require the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and approval of the county Board of County Commissioners as a PUD amendment prior to implementation. Applicants shall be required to submit and process a new application complete with pertinent supporting data set forth in the Administrative Code for the purpose of this section. A substantial change shall be deemed to exist -- and I'm going to read you -- any one of these criteria requires a substantial change. B -- I'm skipping over some of these. I'm giving you the salient ones, in my opinion. A proposed increase in the total number of dwellings or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development. E, a substantial increase in the impact of the development which may include, but not be limited to, increases in traffic, changes in traffic circulation or impacts on other public facilities. F, a change that will result in land-use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon the trip generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Costco's traffic consultant used that manual as part of their process, so that's applicable as well. H, a change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use. I think if you look at those carefully, you will agree with me that their petition for an insubstantial change is deficient. They should have filed a petition for a substantial change based upon this ordinance. These are not my requirements. These are the county's requirements. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask you a question there? MR. SPOKOJNY: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I clearly understand the code and the requirements. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And you're basically saying that this should be a substantial change and an amendment to the PUD, but there's no change in intensity. Intensity has to do with the amount of commercial that's authorized for the site. This is less than what is currently authorized for the site. So I don't understand your argument, because this is not a change in intensity. I guess your basis of your argument, then, is you think staff did not adequately review this and should have ruled it as requiring a PUD amendment because of the traffic analysis? July 17, 2025 Page 29 of 82 MR. SPOKOJNY: Yeah, because of the increase in traffic, because of the intensity. They failed to do that. I am not making these criteria up. It's under the ordinance requirements, and I only ask that they follow the ordinance. I don't think -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll leave that up to staff again and for the applicant to respond, because this was deemed an insubstantial change because the requests were deemed insubstantial. You're basically arguing that staff have overruled or said this is not an insubstantial change. It should have came in as a PUD -- MR. SPOKOJNY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- or PUD amendment. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. That's my position. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. I'll ask for staff to respond. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. Because they didn't analyze the fact that -- about the relationship, the land use, that would be incompatible with the other adjacent land use. They haven't analyzed that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the entire Hacienda PUD already does that. MR. SPOKOJNY: Yeah, but it's part of this new application. It's part of the fact that they submitted a traffic analysis that says they're going to have 4,700 cars a day; that they're going to have a traffic signal on Rattlesnake Road that's going to impede our access to the community. I mean, these are all important factors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I understand they're important factors, but those factors have already been planned for in the activity center. But I -- again, I am here just to listen to your argument. I'm going to ask staff and the applicant to respond. And certainly, your points will be brought up to the BZA as well, from that standpoint on how they deal with this, whether they deem that it should have been a PUD amendment. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: You're welcome. Let me try to pick up where my mind left off. The fact that they have to put a traffic light in requires a variance. They don't meet the legal requirement. It has to be more -- their light is going to be about a thousand feet away from Collier; therefore, they're going to have to apply for a variance to put that traffic light in. I haven't seen anywhere in any of the documentation that they've applied for a variance to put in that traffic light. It should have been part of their insubstantial changes, I would imagine. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know of no requirement for a variance for a traffic light. They have to have a warrant. They have to get a warrant for a traffic light, and they have to justify it, but that's -- again, I'll ask staff to respond to that about the traffic light. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. I believe that their traffic flow has not been optimized. When you look at the entrance into the hospital itself, you're not coming in directly. You have to make a bunch of left turns and right turns. You can't go -- are you familiar with the hospital layout? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I am. MR. SPOKOJNY: There's two entrances. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: One is closer to the Costco facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: But they want you to come in from the facility with the traffic light, all the way in there, meander around the parking lot, make a left turn and make a right turn into Costco. You can't go onto Collier that way. You have to -- and coming out, they want you to make a left turn, go back the same way, and go out with the exit on to -- on to -- with the traffic light. It just is not a prime example of ideal traffic flow. They could have optimized this a lot better. They could have designed a bridge that control -- they control the abutting adjacent land uses, the ancillary land uses. They could build a bridge just like the 7-Eleven did across Collier, July 17, 2025 Page 30 of 82 but they failed to do so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm going to ask Mike Sawyer, the traffic review, at the conclusion because Collier County -- or Collier Boulevard is a controlled access road. It's a county road, but it's controlled for ingress/egress for the flow of traffic, and it's highly restricted as to where you can have right-in and right-off of Collier Boulevard. But, Mike, would you put a note on that and respond when I ask for responses, because that -- I've heard that -- you're the second one to mention that, but, in fact, it's not just I want to put a bridge there and an entrance. That's not our purview. That's the county, and that's the county rules, and that's the county requirements as far as Collier Boulevard. But go ahead. Thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: Thank you. I have seen in the Planning Commission's [sic] recommendation to this body that they say that Rattlesnake is a four-lane access road, and therefore, it allows the 500-foot waiver. I have not seen any documentation to show that Rattlesnake, from a legal perspective, is a four-lane access road. As a matter of fact, I have documentation from a county representative that says the portion of Rattlesnake Road east of Collier has not been designated, period. There's future anticipation in 2030 that it will be designated as an arterial highway, but at this point it has not been designated. I want to read you this section of the ordinance, because I think their ordinance that allows the waiver of the 500 feet is so vague, is so ambiguous that you could grant a waiver for anything. It says -- and I'll read the whole thing, but then I'm going to emphasize a part. "Whether the nature and type of natural or manmade boundary, structure, or other feature lying between the proposed establishment of an existing facility with fuel pumps is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed facility with fuel pump. Such boundary, structure, or any other feature may include but is not limited to lakes, marshes, nondevelopment wetlands, designated preserves area, canals, and a minimum of a four-lane arterial or collector right-of-way." When it says "not limited to," you can throw anything in there. It's a catch-all. The ordinance is meaningless. They're asking for a waiver of 132 feet. That's more [sic] than two-thirds of the requirement of the 500 feet. What is the purpose of that ordinance if you can willy-nilly grant a waiver about anything without determining the impact? That ordinance was put in for a reason, and they're just willy-nilly fabricating the intent of that ordinance. That ordinance is a meaningless ordinance. That concludes my presentation. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Thomas Rath. He was ceded time from Don Schwartz. Is Don Schwartz here? Is Don Schwartz here? (No response.) MR. SABO: All right. He gets five minutes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Stand by. Let me fix my clock here. Go ahead, sir. MR. RATH: Thomas Rath. I'm five years living in Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes. I know the Board of Commissioners will make a wise decision on this Costco proposal. I am going to make life a lot easier for you. A new precedent has been set. The Jacksonville, Florida, City Council, on May 27th, had enough foresight to deny the rezoning of a proposed Costco gas station because of, quote, "traffic connection and two nearby gas stations," exactly the same situation we are now in with the proposed Costco. Costco has said they will have 4,500 cars coming in, but they also have to leave on Rattlesnake Road, nine thousand cars coming and going from that parking lot. The new shopping strip center next to them has 2,000 -- will have new -- because it's new, it will be developed -- 2,000 cars coming and going. The new development right across the street, this huge development, all these condos, okay, they're going to have 5,000 cars. Sixteen thousand more cars in one day will be entering and exiting onto Rattlesnake Road. How can the Board allow that congestion in a residential committee -- community? July 17, 2025 Page 31 of 82 I kept it short, and I appreciate you listening to me. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Question in regards -- you just added the -- you said 16,000 based on the data that you've accumulated. MR. RATH: Yes. Coming in and out on Rattlesnake Road. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll ask -- again, that's a staff question whether it's 16,000. That's -- MR. RATH: Okay. Just alone -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. RATH: -- at the last meeting that Costco had with us, they said 4,500 cars coming in. Okay. They have to come out, too. That's 9,000 cars alone. The new development, okay, there's 2,500 units in that new development. That hasn't been built yet. That's coming. That's new. The strip center right next door, next to Costco, will have an exit on that going in and out of Rattlesnake Road. That is how I came up with 16,000 cars. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I would defer to the applicant and your traffic engineer to present competent substantial evidence to support your claim for what you believe are your traffic counts for that area, even though, again, traffic is not part of our criteria. And I would have to agree with what was presented already. It's a secondary piece of it for the approval of the -- of the separation, so I grant that. Thank you. MR. RATH: Okay. Now, just a second. I said there's a precedent. The Jacksonville, Florida, City Council denied their request, and that is the same -- exactly what we have here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. RATH: Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Herman Diebler. He was ceded time from Leigh Breeden. Is Leigh Breeden here? MS. BREEDEN: Yes. MR. SABO: All right. Ten minutes for Mr. Diebler. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Diebler, you -- 10 minutes? MR. SABO: Ten minutes. MR. DIEBLER: Well, this has been very interesting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name, please. MR. DIEBLER: My name is Herman Diebler. I'm from the Hacienda Lakes development on Sevilla Court. As I say, this has been very interesting. I find myself now in a position where I feel like the fifth husband of a Hollywood icon, and my problem is how am I going to make my first night of intimacy interesting, but give me a -- give me a go at it. Sorry. Costco has earned my respect over the years for its products, for its corporate culture, and in particular, for its civic consciousness. I welcome the desire for Costco to expand in Collier County. What they've shown here has been quite remarkable, and I welcome it into our county. I've lived in Collier County now for going on 30 years. I've seen a lot. Over the years, I've respected the decisions made by Collier County council, and there have been quite a few I've experienced, although lately I have a little concern, particularly with this imminent, imminent approval for a big-box store in the middle of our community. Now, when I say big-box store, it's a store consisting of 170,000-square-foot warehouse, 45,000-square-foot outbuilding, 850-car parking lot, large gas station. We have three already. We only have one more corner left. What you're going to put there, I don't know, all of which is dependent upon one entrance and one exit onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Rattlesnake Hammock Road is not a major road, rather it's used by locals to get in and out of their communities. Now, let's understand collectively what we're all doing. Costco, you do not have to shoehorn all of what you want in the 25-acre site that you've chosen in the middle of a residential area. Granted, it is a -- zoned as commercial, but we will get to that. It will be the first violation of your civic consciousness that I admire. July 17, 2025 Page 32 of 82 I don't know of any other Costco that puts a facility in the middle of this kind of environment that we're choosing to put it in. Costco, you do not have to be close to the 3,000 dwellings that we have in immediate proximity. Your customers do not walk to the store. They must come by car in order to carry all their stuff home. Costco, with only one entrance and one exit into a minor road, you will have gridlock like you haven't seen in your parking lot, not to mention the gridlock that's going to result from this gas station, which is huge. And the fact that it's billed as being members only, I don't think -- I think everybody has a membership to Costco, and the gas is cheap, okay? Cheaper than anybody else. What do you -- where the hell -- where do you think people are going to go? Anyway, it's a footnote. Costco can solve all of these problems, and I hope they do, okay. I really hope they do. But they can be solved by a plot of land south of the -- on 41, south of Collier Boulevard. There's a lot of land down there appropriate for -- appropriate for ingress and egress. The -- the Santa Barbara was brought up. Santa Barbara and Davis is an absolutely perfect location for it. There's two major -- two major roads that can have access on either road, okay, unlike what we have now. We have only the ability to get in via Rattlesnake Hammock. There's been some discussion of the road that runs along Physicians Regional. Now, my input from the board of directors in Physicians Regional, they have completely shut that down. They will not allow that to happen, because Costco is trying to bring delivery trucks into that area, and they're not going to allow it. That's why they're not sitting here and complaining, because they've gotten the agreement that there will be no access to the parking lot from that -- from that location. So that would be appropriate. Both of these locations would be an environment which is totally consistent with what Costco has done before, and it's -- it's the logical thing to do, and we'd all be applauding it, even the people that live there. Collier County, do you realize -- now this has been beat up, but it's true. Collier County, do you realize the massive traffic congestion you will be causing on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road? Costco estimates 4,500 cars per day that will be going in and out, that will be going into their facility. We have approval to build 3,000 dwellings now, which is under construction, which will happen imminently, okay, that will access those same roads. Now, that's 7,000 -- that's 7,000 cars, 8,000 cars. Now, if you would consider they're going in and out like this gentleman suggested -- which is a good point. Sixteen thousand cars. Just with the cars that you have now it's prohibitive. It's tough where it is right now. Now, compound that. You have a hospital that needs rapid access in and out and people waiting on line in Collier in order to get into the Rattlesnake Hammock that is going to impede traffic like you wouldn't believe. However, look, Collier County, whoever convinced you that the traffic situation is not a problem, they will make a fortune selling ice cubes in Alaska. Let me put that aside. Collier County, this property was maybe zoned as commercial, but this is a big box, mammoth facility, and attracts a lot of people. Now, it's -- I've heard that it's considered -- Costco's considered a department store. Well, let me use an analogy. A piper cub is an airplane. A 787 is also an airplane, okay. This is a 787, not a piper cub. It shouldn't be considered a department store. This is a massive -- all these big-box stores are massive -- massive attractions. And for good reason, because they're great to have, but not in the middle of a residential -- not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. And, you know, Costco knows that as well. And I'm really surprised we've gotten this far without them realizing and stepping back. But that's another story. Anyway, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Kenneth Buffum. We have about 12 speakers left. July 17, 2025 Page 33 of 82 MR. BUFFUM: Good morning. Kenneth Buffum. I live at Hacienda Lakes. I'm a year-round resident. I'm going to kind of touch on some of the things that people have already talked about. I'll be really quick. Costco, in its application, has used the term "member-only gas station." Well, it is a member-only gas station, but it is also three times the size of any normal gas station. They're going to queue up 70 cars in that gas station. That's also going to create traffic, just like everybody said, but it also makes it deficient on Item 4 of the application, that it will affect access to land use on the -- on everybody in that area. So they are deficient in their application based on Criteria No. 4, whether it affects the access to land use. That's all I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. BUFFUM: Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker, Lynn Bowman. If Lynn can stand at the left podium. David Stasiak at the right podium. MS. BOWMAN: Hi. My name is Lynn Bowman. I am a resident at Hacienda Lakes, and I am a Costco member, and so I have nothing against Costco. But this plot of land is not a good fit for a huge business with more gas pumps; in this case, 24. I'm not going to reiterate the number of traffic that's going to go in and out of this area; 4,500 from Costco, and then I figured another 3,000 from the apartments that are being built, and another 800 from Hacienda Lakes and Azure. And so if you figure it out, you're going to have about 10,000 people coming and going anywhere in that facility. I also want to tell you that there is a new Memory Care Center and assisted living that opened up on Rattlesnake that will definitely require emergency vehicles coming in and out. The fire department and the EMTs from East Naples use Rattlesnake as their main entrance and exit to go to fires or wherever they need to go. If a catastrophic event happens such as a fire like we had in back of our environmental area -- fire started. If we have a catastrophic event such as a fire or car accidents or gas leaks or a hurricane evacuation, with all of these residents and members of Costco, we are trapped, and we have really no other major road to go and exit the neighborhood. Rattlesnake is a dead-end. It is not a thoroughfare. It goes from Collier and it ends at Azure, at the entrance of Azure. So it is not a thoroughfare. It isn't anything like Collier and Davis and any of those. The increase in traffic in Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake is definitely going to cause more accidents and backups in traffic towards the hospital, which will make it very difficult for emergency vehicles to go. In the majority of cases, Costco has built in an area where they have two major exits. As in North Naples, they have Pine Ridge, and they also have Airport-Pulling. That is not the case here. They only have Rattlesnake, and that's it, and that's the only place that they're going to be able to go in and out because there is a hospital in the back that needs Collier for its emergency vehicles. The county is responsible for the safety of the public when making decisions. Collier County requires a 500-foot separation between gas stations primarily for public safety. Benzine and other harmful toxic emissions are released in the air and from underground storage tanks. Studies have shown the increased risk of cancer and other health issues. The reason for this 500-foot separation is to protect neighborhoods and create a buffer. If a 500-foot separation is required by Collier County to protect the public, it should not provide a waiver under any circumstances. If a business doesn't fit the footprint, it should be automatically rejected, and the business should be told to go elsewhere. And in this case, we have 24 more gas pumps, and that is a major issue. In conclusion, safety is my major concern, along with traffic and evacuation routes. I understand that Costco wants to serve Marco Island and East Naples, but there are more suitable areas to build where there are two or more major roads that customers can come in and out of. No July 17, 2025 Page 34 of 82 amount of traffic lights on Rattlesnake are going to make a big difference to this gridlock of traffic that it's going to cause. I'm not against the zoning of commercial building or building any other type of facility, but not with another gas station. But I do think that a huge station as Costco with more gas pumps and excessive traffic it brings along with it suitable for the propose -- isn't suitable for the proposed location of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake. I realize that gas is for members only, but as has been said -- but if you have ever been at any Costco location, there are lines of people waiting to get cheaper gas. You can bet that a Costco, if it's close to the people, they will buy a Costco membership for $35, and they will be at that gas station. So I would propose that with the excessive traffic and the evacuation routes, that the county will take this into consideration. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. BOWMAN: Thank you for my time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. STASIAK: Yes. My name is David Stasiak. I live at Hacienda Lakes and Esplanade at the dead-end of Rattlesnake and Hammock [sic]. Again, Lynn Bowman has issued and bulleted the -- some good explanations on why this should not be proposed, Costco in this location. My concern is that we are at a dead-end road. There is limited access. If there is a catastrophic event that would take place for a number of people to evacuate during a hurricane or whatever and if there is a traffic event, an accident, maybe someone -- a car flew into a gas pump either at Costco's gasoline pump station or 7-Eleven or whatever, if there is a car that would go into these pumps, it would explode, there would be a huge event, they would shut down that Rattlesnake and Collier intersection, so we would be trapped. The Azure community and the Esplanade community, the nursing home facility, whatever, would be trapped in that location. And the roads that are located around there, the Lord's Way, is not adequate for the volume of people that would need to be -- evacuate that area for whatever reason. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Left-side podium Paul Todorovich. Right-side podium, Bill Dunn, please. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is Paul here? (No response.) MR. SABO: Bill Dunn? Is the next speaker. Left-side podium, Elaine Rath. MS. RATH: I waive my -- I waive speaking. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You waive speaking? And your name, please, sir. MR. DUNN: Bill Dunn. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Bill Dunn. MR. DUNN: I'm a resident in Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes. I'm also a full-time resident and a retired Chicago police commander of 32 years that I was assigned to the district that includes the downtown Chicago business and shopping area as well as the entertainment area, and I supervised numerous major events with over a million people in attendance at each and every one of those and worked hand in hand with the department of the Chicago police -- or Chicago Department of Transportation in putting together traffic flow situations and safety issues concerned around traffic and busy thoroughfares. I'll try and keep this a little short because most of the other people have done a very nice job of giving all our information to you guys and our concerns. As far as the gas pump waiver is concerned, there's already a rule in place dealing with the 500-foot distance. That in itself should be enough to cancel this project. What is the reason you're willing to circumvent your own rules to accommodate Costco who knew they're in violation but selfishly went forward with no concern for your constituents? July 17, 2025 Page 35 of 82 The Costco rep spoke very eloquently and lengthy; however, he gave no valid reason as to why there should be a gas station there. None whatsoever. The only reason I can think of is greed. There's no other thing that they suggested would be a benefit to the community by having a gas station there. The 24-plus gas pumps that are going to go in place are going to have up to 70 cars idling in one location all at the same time. It's way too close to the street, way too close to the sidewalk. It's going to impact the sidewalk and bike lanes on the south side of Rattlesnake where it's going to be unusable for any walkers, bicyclists, elderly people, people using walkers and wheelchairs. It's a busy, busy street for all the local people there, and there's no way in hell they'd be able to get across all that traffic to get to and across Collier. Also, Costco says -- and I'll reiterate what a lot of other people said. They mentioned -- they hang their hat on it's a membership gas station. How many Costco members are in the Naples area? Thousands? Hundreds? Millions? I don't know. How many people with Costco memberships that come into Collier County in season who don't live here but will shop at Costco, how many of them have Costco memberships? So the fact that they're trying to compare Costco's gas station with other gas stations is laughable. It's not even close in comparison to the amount of vehicles that will be coming in and out of there on a daily basis. Just to touch a little bit, then, on the -- oh, a little bit on the traffic since I do have a lot of experience in traffic. And again, it's a lot of -- it's what people have said already. Forty-five -- Costco says 4,500-plus cars a day going in -- onto Rattlesnake. In addition to those cars, there's cars that are going to be -- from the 2,700 new apartment units that are going on. There's going to be vehicles from the 800 existing developments between Esplanade and Azure. There's always the seniors facility. There's also the other businesses and things that would come in in the future. There's commercial vehicles that access Rattlesnake on a constant basis making deliveries to the residences, construction people, things along that lines. The way it's designed right now off of Collier, you basically are going to have -- and again, I know it's traffic and you guys aren't too concerned about it, but if you have the gas pump -- if you have the gas tank there, it creates -- there is the creation of the traffic problem. Right now there are three -- possible three turning lanes off of Collier, two going southbound, one going northbound, which would be making right turns on red, going into two lanes that will go into one lane to turn into the facility right where the gas pumps are that will be backing up all the traffic just as they enter into the place. It's insane to think that that's going to be -- you're going to have people crossing over, basically, two lanes of traffic to cut in front of other cars to get in to get gas. It's just -- it's not doable. Physically not possible. Having another stoplight down the road is not going to cause anything. All that's going to do is cause a backup further on down the road. And when people are trying to make U-turns to go back on -- to go back west onto -- to get to Collier, it's just -- it's going to create another myriad of problems. So with that being said -- the only thing I'm asking is please don't allow that fuel pump waiver to be issued, because it serves no purpose. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DUNN: Thank you very much. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Janice Christopher. Left podium, please. Roy Martin at the right podium. Janice Christopher not here? MS. CHRISTOPHER: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh. MR. SABO: Oh, got it. July 17, 2025 Page 36 of 82 MS. CHRISTOPHER: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I am a neighbor and resident in the Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes. I also work as a Realtor. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name, please, for the record. MS. CHRISTOPHER: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name. MS. CHRISTOPHER: I'm sorry. Janice Christopher. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. CHRISTOPHER: I'm a Realtor. I work as an independent RN patient advocate, so I'm in and out of the community for many different things every day. Currently, with all the increased residences that we have there, you don't really see crazy traffic happening. The most crazy traffic we do see and experience is when they have the Swamp Buggy races. Then it gets really backed up, and it blocks our access so we can't even get across Rattlesnake to take care of it. I, myself, have called in and taken pictures and sent it down to the county, so they're well aware of that. So that's something that does need to be looked at, and that could possibly be a problem for us with Costco. However, I am totally in favor of the Costco being where it is. Over and over we hear about people talking about traffic flow, 4,500, and it will be more with other people, but it's not per minute. It's not per hour. It's throughout the whole day. So when you break it up, you're not seeing that much traffic as you're making it sound. The area is zoned commercial. Costco is a wonderful facility. They maintain their sites. They're always clean. They're always orderly. You don't hear of any kind of negative experiences taking place, or maybe they're not being reported, but you don't hear about them, and they're usually -- you have riffraff kind of people hanging around there. One of the speakers mentioned a possible gas event that could happen if a car ran into a gas pump. That could happen at any of the other gas stations, too, there or anywhere else in Naples. So that's just a day-to-day reality. Someone else mentioned about several lines backing up to receive gas. I've been at other gas stations throughout Naples when there are lines there because their price for fuel was a little bit lower than the surrounding station, and they typically move through. As I understand it from a previous meeting at Costco when they came into the neighborhood, they have a queue set up so that the cars will not be backed up and waiting onto Rattlesnake or Collier. They actually will be in this queue on the Costco grounds. So to me, that doesn't seem to really back up that area. And as a person who is a Costco member, it is a benefit for me to have gas there. Having 24 pumps, it makes it quick and easy for you to get in and out more quickly. If you go out to the airport, they have many more pumps than the Pine Ridge one does, and you don't wait long in line there. You might have two or three people ahead of you, and you're in and out very quickly, and it moves very smoothly. So many of the things that are being said, I think if we really stop and take a good look at them, we could see that they're not really rational things. They are concerns. And traffic definitely is something that needs to be considered and looked at carefully, but I see value in having the Costco there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. MARTIN: I'm up. My name is Roy Martin. I'm a year-round resident at Esplanade Hacienda Lakes. I'm going to take this down another path based on my experiences and my background. I took a look at this from another angle. What I did is I went to the Collier County website, and this is a blueprint map of the area. And it's very similar to the diagrams, the topographical maps you July 17, 2025 Page 37 of 82 had before. This is more zoomed in. And what we're looking here is -- I have it boxed in here. This is the land, the lot of land that we're talking about. And what you have here -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike will put that on the visualizer. He wants to use that -- he wanted to refer to it, so. MR. MARTIN: I see. I gotcha. Okay. Perfect. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're going to have to speak -- you're going to have to speak into the microphone. I don't even know if you got -- go ahead. There you go. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: Are we good? Okay. You can see the lot of land here, and what you'll see here is that we have a red line going down there. That is the Henderson Creek Canal. And based on the -- you can see the diagram here where you have the scale on there, and it matches very closely to what I seen presented on the board over here. You're going to have a little bit south of about one million square feet of surface area that is going to be covered by the building, the parking lot, the egress and -- inlet and outlet roadways, et cetera, for this parcel of land. Now, I take -- off the very same website, I've zoomed out, and you can see here at the top that's the parcel of land we're talking about. If you go south down Collier, you have that Henderson Creek Canal, and then you have other property, residential properties that I've circled. Now, I want you to remember -- I'm pointing at these particular properties because you're going to see it again based on a study that was conducted in 2018. I'm referring to this particular study. I can email it to you or send it, whatever. Basically, there was something that was conducted by the -- I've got to look myself -- Southwest Florida Water Management District in 2018. I'm going to be referring to some of the data from their study. I've got to read my own notes, sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's all right. MR. MARTIN: Right. In this particular diagram, this is the area that I had circled before. What I've done is circled it again, and what it shows is this is the waterway, again, the Henderson Creek Canal, that dumps into the Henderson Belle Meade basin. And what they did is an impact of the land changes they had occurred. The buildings -- your Verona Walks, the Cypress, whatever the name of that community is, that's what is being covered here in this particular circle. And what they showed is because of the changes in topography, because of the building, you see an increase as you go south because the water flows south, and you're getting closer to sea level, all right. So you're losing elevation as you go south down Collier. And you see the increase in the potential flooding as we go south because of the -- because of the land -- use of land for residential. Again, this is the same study continuing. And in this particular area, what they're covering here is the impact of the seawater level and the impact it has on the water table. As the sea level has increased, the water table is closer to the surface. So the basin itself, when it gets hit with all this deluge of water during the rainstorm, it doesn't have the ability to absorb as much water. So more of it is going to remain on the surface. That increases the flooding potential, and that's what this study shows. Here again, same type of thing. It does not include any tidal effects or any storm surge effects. All it's showing is that the surface water is closer to the -- or the groundwater is closer to the surface, and what that means and the conclusions of that is that the canal itself is going to be operating at higher water levels than what it normally used to do, okay. And this is going back seven years ago to 2018. This is a diagram showing the different waterways, including the Henderson Creek. This is during Hurricane Ian, okay. And what that is showing is the effect on the water level in these canals and the waterways based on storm surge. And you can see here they actually lost data -- a period of data. You can see the curve going up, the slope of the curve going up, and then again July 17, 2025 Page 38 of 82 recovering. They lost data because of a power outage or some other kind of event. But you can see what -- all the other bodies of water that were affected by Ian as it was moving through Southwest Florida. You can see that in some cases it hit levels of as much as 12 feet of surge. Now, if you have even six feet of surge -- we only had -- Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier, you're at a 10-foot elevation. If you have six foot of surge, that means that water that is normally down here is now going to be -- now going to be able to flow downstream. And what happens is water pools. These communities are going to have increased flooding. Now, why am I bringing that up? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sir, I'm going to ask you to wrap it up. You're past five minutes. MR. MARTIN: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If you could wrap it up. MR. MARTIN: Yep. I'm wrapping it up right here. This is the same thing, the same area I showed before. You have about approximately -- just under one million square feet. With a rainfall of about half of an inch per minute -- or half an inch per hour, you're going to have to discharge better than 5,000 gallons of water per minute to keep from flooding this area. And these diagrams here, this blueprint does not show the existing property. It shows trees where there's now buildings and parking lot. The bottom line is we have a great potential of additional flooding because of the building, and they have not been able to keep up pace with even their own diagrams. That's Collier County. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Are you a registered engineer or an engineer? MR. MARTIN: I'm a chemical engineer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chemical engineer. MR. MARTIN: I have 40 years of experience in water treatment -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. MARTIN: -- industrial water treatment, wastewater treatment, oil and gas recovery, hydraulic fraction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I just asked for the record, though -- MR. MARTIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- just because you presented information that could be challenged, and I just wanted to know your credentials. MR. MARTIN: I look forward to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You are aware, though -- and I'm going to ask the applicant to address -- again, because it was brought up by the public -- that they do have to submit what is called an ERP, environmental resource permit? MR. MARTIN: And that's fine. I understand the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the ERP goes to the South Florida Water Management District, and it has to clearly define how they're going to store water, retain water, and discharge water, and that will all be permitted through the South Florida Water Management District. This is not -- as far as I know, there's no jurisdictional wetlands on this property. So we're not talking about Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Army Corps of Engineers from a permit perspective or even endangered species. But we are talking about an ERP, and that has to go through their adequate design criteria because they cannot trespass water from their property onto someone else's property. They have to deal with that flow. And I'll ask the applicant to address that in a response. His engineer can address that -- MR. MARTIN: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- if it's a concern. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: All right. Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker, David Richardson, and Elain Rath has waived, correct? MS. RATH: Yes. July 17, 2025 Page 39 of 82 MR. SABO: We have two speakers on Zoom. MR. RICHARDSON: Good morning. My name is David Richardson. I'm a resident of Azure at Hacienda Lakes. I'm a former lawyer, never licensed in Florida, and I'm just speaking for myself. We've been told that Costco with gas facility is permitted as of right. With all due respect, I'm not sure that that's the case. If you look -- assuming the gas station waiver is granted, then this Costco facility becomes a facility with fuel pumps under the Land Development Code. I'll just read the definition at the risk of boring everybody. But a facility with fuel pumps is defined as any establishment that sells, distributes, or pumps fuels for motor vehicle whether or not such facility provides automotive repair services or includes a convenience store. So I'm not sure why that would not include the Costco store. In the staff report -- and with all due respect to the county staff, which I think does a great job -- it's described as the gas station will serve as an accessory to the commercial retail. The gas station is obviously not an accessory. There's definition of accessory uses in the zoning code, which don't include gas stations. And a gas station is a principal use in the commercial zoning district, so it can't be an accessory use. That's important, I think, because if you look at Section 5.05.05 of the Land Development Code, there are restrictions on what a, quote, "facility with fuel pumps" can do. Specifically in Subsection J, there are restrictions on what they can sell. And sales are limited to basically convenience-store items, the type that 7-Eleven sells. Obviously, Costco sells a lot more than 7-Eleven. So the way I read it, again, assuming the ASW is granted, they have to comply with 5.05.J [sic], which they are not in compliance with because they sell a lot more than convenience-store items. Similarly, in that 5.05.05 of the Land Development Code, there's a restriction on light poles to 20 maximum feet, not 25, as they describe in their waiver -- in their deviation request. So that's just to say I hope that everyone can look at that section of the Land Development Code, because I think it applies to Costco, and I think they need an additional variance for what they're planning on doing. With regard to the landscaping deviation the request for that, as a couple of commissioners pointed out, I think it's very important, the landscape code. A lot of us look at it as sort of technicalities. But again, if I can just read what the purpose of the landscape code is, and this is directly from 4.06.01 of the Land Development Code. Some of the purposes of it is reduce noise and glare, to improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat, and chemical pollution, and by reducing heat gauge. Their request to limit the amount of landscaping that's required goes to all of these purposes of the landscape code. And I haven't heard any good reason for their deviation request. Mr. Wester said that they have approximately 140 or 150, quote, "overflow parking spaces," but there's nothing in the Land Development Code about overflow parking. Parking is parking. It seems to be their reasoning for this request is that, "Hey, we're big, and we just don't want to put in landscaping," but they should be required to put in that additional landscaping because the parking lot is so big, in my opinion. In regards to the signage, again, it's a lot of technical requirements, but they're asking for basically a 40 percent increase in the amount of signage, and I think, again, the staff report sort of says that's sort of the national standard for Costco. I'm not sure why the county needs to comply with Costco standards as opposed to the opposite. I think they should be required to comply with the county standards when it comes to zoning and development. Just really quick, just to reiterate what one of the earlier speakers said regarding the proposed traffic light, that's actually across from Hammock Park apartments, so it's 1,000 feet, approximately, from Collier and Rattlesnake. The county access management policy has a July 17, 2025 Page 40 of 82 minimum requirement of a quarter mile between traffic signals, so that's 1,320 feet. And all that's described on Page 22 of their -- Costco's -- excuse me -- transportation study, and that describes why they need a variance for that. And then just really quickly, the former lawyer from Michigan said -- pointed out that they didn't submit a market study for their ASW request. That is a requirement of the Administrative Code, and because it wasn't included -- if it was submitted, it wasn't included in the agenda materials for today, the backup items. So if it wasn't ever submitted, then I think the request should be denied just based on that, because they haven't followed the rules. If it was submitted but wasn't included in the agenda, then I think the decision should be postponed until -- it should be provided to the public both so the commissioners can review it and that the public can comment on it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Hey, Chair? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Could I ask that -- could I ask that public speaker a question? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Come back up, please. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a commissioner on the phone who wants to ask a question. Go ahead, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you, Chair. Sir, thank you for your presentation. I actually enjoyed it; a lot of good data. MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I just wanted to ask you a question. When you bought in Azure, did you buy, like, preconstruction? Did you go into a sales center? Did you do any site review prior to your purchase of it? MR. RICHARDSON: I went to the sales center. If you're asking whether I reviewed the Hacienda Lakes PUD, I can't say that I did. I was surprised that this commercial zoning is present. I thought if we could go back to 2011, maybe it would be either not zoned commercial or designed a lot smaller. But obviously, we can't go back -- can't go back to 2011, so... COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's what I'm trying to find from the consumer aspect is whether or not the developers, when they set this in place, of Hacienda Lakes with whatever sales center, whatever they did, if they had outlined what those uses would be prior to your purchase. Because I'm sure if you knew -- given your background and the data you gave us, if you had known that a store as big as Costco was going to go in there, would that have -- would that have changed your decision to purchase? MR. RICHARDSON: That's sort of a loaded question, but I think it probably would. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: And the sales center didn't mention anything, which I can't blame them. They're in the business of selling homes, so -- and it was my sort of duty as a former lawyer to look it up, which I didn't. I still love my home, and I don't want to leave, but to be -- to answer your question, I think it would have impacted my decision. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It would have? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Thank you again. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. SABO: The next speaker is on Zoom, Jacqueline Rizzo. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, please. MS. RIZZO: Yes. Good morning. I would like to withdraw my request to speak because the previous speakers have done a great job of conveying my opinions. July 17, 2025 Page 41 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, thank you. Next speaker? MR. SABO: Next speaker on Zoom is John Yazinski. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: John, can you take your phone off mute? MR. YAZINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, thank you. MR. YAZINSKI: Thank you. And thank you for the time. I'm a resident of the Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes, Promoso Court. And I appreciate Mr. Schumacher's question, because I also am a retired lawyer, and I was aware that there was a -- that I was buying into -- into a development that was part of a PUD. And the knowledge of what was going to be built was -- I had it, but I did not expect the intensity. So that caused me now to go back and look at all of the minutes of this board that considered the original proposals, the minutes from the adoption of the PUD master plan, Mr. Bauer's (phonetic) numerous presentations to this board to change what you had previously approved. And the representations about that commercial development were always consistent with a development like the 7-Eleven plaza, like the smaller commercial developments that contain some retail, some restaurants, some services. In 2021, when Mr. Bauer appeared in front of you asking that a portion of the land that he deeded to the hospital be included in this active area, he represented that he had sold the hospital subject to a covenant that the hospital could not build an offsite pharmacy because he envisioned the commercial use for this property to be kind of a Walgreens development. And I think if you go back to the origination of this PUD, no one would have ever considered a -- an intense development like a Costco as the commercial development for this spot. It's inconsistent with the PUD. And if you look at -- well, the purpose of the PUD, what has happened since the PUD was adopted? Developments in the public -- in the PUD should benefit and be consistent with the PUD. And I just respectfully suggest, if you go back, that this was never, ever the development that was contemplated that is actually going to occur. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the last two speakers on Zoom dropped off. That is -- no more public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, I appreciate all of the input, and I made several notes. The time is 11:56. We've been at this for an hour and a half. I've got -- certainly have to afford time to the applicant to refute or rebut or present competent substantial evidence in regards to some of this, because what I've heard for the last hour and a half is their argument is pretty much concentrated on the fact that "let's stop the gas station, and if they don't build the gas station, they're not going to put in a Costco." That's kind of where I believe this whole thing is focused. So the whole focus of the argument was "let's stop the gas station, let's deny the waiver, and then hopefully Costco will not build here." I can't say whether they will or not, and certainly there's other ways that they could put a gas station on that site. But I'm going to break for lunch. We'll take a 30-minute break. I apologize for those that are going to have to stay, but I'm sure we're going to have quite a lengthy discussion. But before the applicant actually responds, I've got a couple questions of staff, and I think my colleagues are as well, specifically with the access limitations, Mike Sawyer, that were brought up, and -- because -- and I want to talk about the stacking because the implied reasoning for us to deny the waiver was because of the perceived stacking, that will somehow go -- from the gas station will bleed all the way out into Rattlesnake and block traffic on Rattlesnake. That's what I heard. But we've got a couple of minutes. Mike, if you want to cover the access on Collier Boulevard, because we've heard two different speakers talk about, gee, let's just put a bridge over the canal. So with that, what's the -- can you comment on that? Thank you. July 17, 2025 Page 42 of 82 MR. SAWYER: Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. As far as another access point on 951, first off, the PUD would have to come in and make that request -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MR. SAWYER: -- because it's not shown on the master plan. We would evaluate it, just like we all do, you know, whatever comes in. At this point, staff would have to -- I don't see staff approving that. First off, it would be close enough to that intersection and the signal that we would not recommend, you know, approving that. Secondarily, and more importantly, the PUD itself already has more than adequate access to various roadways. And because of that, currently, I don't foresee a need to have another access between where the intersection is and where the existing intersection -- or the existing locations that the hospital have. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: As far as the site plan, specifically focusing on the location of the service station or the gas station, staff is reviewing the site plan, and part of that -- and I guess Jaime as well, Jaime Cook, the evaluation is looking at the -- what is forecasted by the traffic analysis is the stacking, and is there, from the staff's perspective, at least initially as you're reviewing now -- and I'm going to ask the applicant's traffic engineer to discuss this, but are there perceived impact on Rattlesnake where somehow traffic is going to be backed up all the way onto Rattlesnake, blocking emergency vehicles, bicycles, or other -- what was stated on the record. MR. SAWYER: Okay. Just to be clear -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- just so that everybody understands, our office looks at zoning petitions as they come in. That's why we're here -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- providing testimony for you and trying to answer your questions. We do not review Site Development Plans. That's done through Development Services, and that's why Jaime and I are both here to try and answer, because right now we have two petitions that you are hearing today that are zoning related. What is being presented with the TIS is related to the SDP itself. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SAWYER: So just to let you know, that's where we're at. MS. COOK: And again, Jaime Cook, for the record. So as far as your question, Commissioner, that is one of the things that staff has asked for is that stacking exhibit to be shown as part of the Site Development Plan. They cannot block traffic on Rattlesnake, Collier, or any other right-of-way whether it's for the Costco warehouse itself or the fuel facility. They have to retain their traffic within their site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. One question, and then I'm going to -- I'm going to declare we're going to take a lunch break, because I've got to give our staff recorder time to rest her fingers. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Jaime, this is, I think, a question for you. So what -- what was expected in this PUD? There was a comment that "something like this was not expected in this PUD." This is a commercially zoned parcel. What was expected? MS. COOK: I'm going to let Mike answer that, so -- but to preface what I'm sure he'll answer with is when the zoning was done, when the PUD was established, it was established for commercial with a set of uses that are allowed by our code with a maximum square footage. So I'll let Mike chime in on the specifics of that. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And like I said, it was approved in 2011. The commercial designation was approved for 327,500 square feet of commercial use. There are 89 different SIC codes within their use codes. July 17, 2025 Page 43 of 82 So it's a range of activities. A department store was one of those. So the intensity of the department store had to be contemplated by the Board of County Commissioners, by staff in the reports that were provided for in terms of what could go at the location. When you're at zoning you do -- you do not know, especially when you have a project that's going to be built out over a 10, 15-year period to even longer, that it -- the specificity, you don't know what the market's going to be demanded. What I can say is 327,000 square feet are allowed by that PUD of various commercial uses. A department store is one of those uses. So a -- whether it be a Costco, whether it be a Super Walmart or Super Target or such, that type of use was contemplated. Now, it wasn't specified. It wasn't -- I don't think it was specifically discussed, but within the traffic analysis, within the intensity that was approved, a department store could most certainly sit within that 327,000 square feet of commercial use that was allowed and approved by the PUD. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And refresh my memory, the square footage that Costco's asking for right now. MR. BOSI: I believe, like -- just under 169,000 square feet for Costco. So there would still be -- there's still left over -- there's still over 150,000 square feet of commercial that's still available. Now, there are only going to be four additional acres that are left over within that activity center, so you couldn't squeeze that in. It just is impossible. But the amount that they are requesting, it's 169,000. So that still leaves almost 150,000 square feet of commercial still available for that activity center. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So that comment that "this was not expected for this PUD" is not correct? MR. BOSI: I couldn't -- I wasn't a part of the zoning application and the zoning team that was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, but it was a use that's identified within the PUD. 327,000 square feet were allocated for the commercial area. It was a use that had to have been contemplated. It might not have been discussed, but it had to have been contemplated and the intensity associated with it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, we'll reconvene at 12:35. Take a 30-minute break for lunch. Thank you. (A recess was had from 12:04 p.m. to 12:35 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. A lot of the residents, if they're coming back, I'd like to give -- I'm going to go over just a few things. And I know, Mike, you're working on it, because we're asking -- I'm going to just go over a list of things that I'm going to ask either the applicant or staff to cover, and basically, the crux of the argument, as I stated prior to lunch, was that the focus has primarily been on the location of the gas station and the impact of the gas station. Can I ask those in the audience, if you have comments -- sir, if you have comments, please, you can go outside. I mean, we have -- we'll continue with the meeting. And, in essence, we had folks who stated, and I quoted, totally disagreed with the impact. This was a Development of Regional Impact. It's called a DRI. It was a PUD and a DRI. A DRI, many years ago, used to go to the regional zoning -- Regional Planning Council, RPC. And as stated, this was designed to be an intense use, DRI, PUD, and the intersection was designed to adequately -- or to meet the requirements, whether it's a Costco or Walmart or whatever. But that's basically -- folks said they disagree with the impact, but the impact was not specifically Costco, but it was clearly, I would say, understand it was -- it was implied but also understood very clearly that there was going to be a significant facility at that site. Not Costco, but I just bring that up. I wrote down -- and I'm going to ask the applicant to address the issue of stacking and the July 17, 2025 Page 44 of 82 gas station, because that will be an issue. And we've discussed at the break -- I know you're going to come in with a proposal. But anyways, we will deal with that as far as the impact to the gas station. Staff, could you comment -- there was a discussion the legal -- it wasn't -- basically, not -- one of the attorneys represented that this was a substantial change and should have gone through the PUD amendment process. Can you describe how you believe that this qualified as an insubstantial change and not a substantial -- a substantial change? MR. BOSI: And within the criteria for an insubstantial change, what is a substantial and insubstantial change, I think one of the reasons -- or the criteria they said that they thought failed was because of an increase within intensity. This is not an increase within intensity. I think I've described it a number of times. 327,000 square feet of commercial use has been allocated and approved for this PUD. This is only taking 169,000 square feet of that 327,000 square feet. It is not an increase in intensity. It is intensity that has been assigned to this PUD. They're asking for 169,000 square feet of that 327,000. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With the understanding that if they develop to the full approved intensity of commercial, that the traffic analysis would have supported that as well? MR. BOSI: The traffic analysis was based upon 327,000 square feet of commercial use when they were -- did the evaluation of the entire PUD. They also had to account for the business park. They also had to account for Swamp Buggy. They also had to account for the residential or the medical use/residential -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- as well as the residential component of it. All of those were part of the traffic analysis that was done. And concurrency management's not applied at rezoning. So in 2011, it wasn't a concurrency management review. It was a capacity review. What were the affected segments that this proposal and these trips were going -- were going to affect, and were there capacity within the segments that the trips associated with this proposed PUD was going to generate. And the conclusion was there was satisfaction from a capacity standpoint, but the application of concurrency doesn't get applied until you have a Site Development Plan such as what was submitted for this Costco. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that's when the traffic analysis was done -- MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and commensurate with the site plan. I would say just from the comments made, whether it's a substantial or insubstantial change, that may be a legal argument, and depending on where the BZA goes with this, if there's an appeal, that may be a basis for an appeal if someone wanted to argue that this was a substantial change, but right now staff has pretty much determined it's an insubstantial change. I have to support staff because I agree, understanding that this was anticipated to be in that location, and the changes are deemed to be insubstantial. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, may I make a few notes for the record? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Although this is being processed and reviewed as a PDI and insubstantial change, the procedure that it's going through is a PUDA, because they're coming to you for recommendation and then to the Board, and that was pursuant to Board direction at the meeting, that it go outside its normal route. Normally a PDI would end with you or end with the Hearing Examiner. I'd also like to note that as backup to the insubstantial change is the findings for the original PUD in 2011 and closed in -- it's in Exhibit G that contains the staff report. And the zoning staff did note that there were no changes with this petition to the original finding. So I just wanted to complete the record with those notes. Thank you. July 17, 2025 Page 45 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. As far as the traffic light, does staff -- or -- Mike, have we gone through any warrant for a traffic light, or is it just something that's desired that they may pursue later on? MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon. Mike Sawyer again, Transportation Planning. I'm not part of that review either; however, we do have people in our department that does. Currently that warrant study is still being reviewed. There has not been any determination yet. There's been no decision. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So -- but it is something that -- MR. SAWYER: It is in the system. We are looking at it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If it could be approved and get the proper warrants, they would like to proceed with a controlled access? MR. SAWYER: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only other argument that I heard kind of consistent in the themes, somehow the gas station was perceived to be the principal use, and the Costco was the auxiliary -- or like a 7-Eleven and the service -- you know, the sandwich shop that goes with the 7-Eleven. Clearly, the principal use here is the Costco building, and the gas station is an accessory to. Is that -- MR. BOSI: That is the way we view it in terms of from a square footage -- from a square-footage standpoint. Most certainly, the majority of the square footage and area dedicated to the site is dedicated to the goods and -- the goods within Costco and not associated with the service station. It is not a stand-alone gas station. It is a secondary use to the 169 -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Principal use of the -- MR. BOSI: Principal use. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: But because the automobile service station, facilities with fuel pump, requires separation between facilities that pump fuel, that's why the separation requirement is being required for the Costco development. It's one of those ones where we had to treat this as a stand-alone gas station, but the full aspect of 5.05.05, the facilities with fuel pump, does not apply because it is not an -- it is not a stand-alone gas station. It is a gas station that's associated with a membership department store. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I just wanted that for the record. With that, do my colleagues have any other questions? I'm going to turn it over to the petitioner for any rebuttal or any other proposals they want to make. Seeing none, Mr. Wester. MR. WESTER: Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. Okay. There's a lot to go through here. So, again, in the interest of time -- I do want to bring my traffic engineer up really quick and discuss some of the basics of the traffic. A lot has been discussed about the trips out on the roadways. And in the PUD, as I mentioned in my presentation, we are below the threshold for the amount of square footage, as Mr. Bosi just mentioned; we're below the acreage figures allowed in the activity center, okay, for our specific use and our parcel; and we're also below the trip thresholds. If we weren't any one of those, it would be either a substantial change, a major rezoning, or it just wouldn't be allowed. So we are under those major thresholds. And those are really benchmark criterias. And then specifically I'll cite to the PUD where it says total traffic -- or total project intensity. In no event shall the project exceed 3,328 p.m. peak-hour trips, okay. And we're under that. And I'd like for my traffic engineer -- just state your name and address for the record and your credentials, and then just recite some figures for us, please. July 17, 2025 Page 46 of 82 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Ronnie Cunningham with Kittelson & Associates, 225 East Robinson, Orlando, Florida. I'm a professional engineer and a road safety professional licensed in the state of Florida. I conducted the Traffic Impact Statement for this project as well as the signal warrant analysis and intersection control evaluation study. Both of those are currently under review with county traffic engineering. P.m. peak-hour-wise, the Costco is going to generate 512 p.m. peak-hour new trips. So the 3,000 -- what was the threshold, 3,000 -- MR. WESTER: Three thousand. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yeah. So we're at 512, well under the 3,300. MR. WESTER: Yeah, 3,328 p.m. peak-hour trips. And we've also got some additional data that we'd like to supply. But in talking with staff during the break, some of the public that came up and spoke talked about a market study. And early on during our application process, we submitted a lot of documentation. And some of that documentation was not only in map and graphic form, but it was also justification statements in responses to the code criteria which, in our eyes, was not only justification but really showed kind of the backbone of this analysis. And as Mr. Bosi just pointed out, this is a different approach from a normal automobile service station or a normal gas and seek [sic] store type of facility because it is member-based only, and it's attached to the Costco warehouse use. And so with that said -- and staff can describe a little bit more -- but we'd like to ask for a continuance on the -- specifically regarding the ASW decision, so then we can provide a more substantive market analysis related to the gas waiver. And I understand staff can describe -- I think it would be in September when this would be heard again at the next available Planning Commission meeting, specific to the ASW request. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So you're requesting a continuance of PL20240011790, which is the petition for the ASW waiver? MR. WESTER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I will open it up for Board discussion. Staff, do you have any comments before we open it up for Board discussion and recommendation or -- and we need to vote and state whether it will be at the September meeting. So any questions? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just a quick one, excuse me. If I may, what is your goal as far as your topic documents that you plan to bring to us that's different than what you presented today? MR. WESTER: There will be more of a Costco-specific market study in relation to the other facilities for Costco and gas showing more of a specific need for this type of location but more specifically tied to the distance waiver. I think it's important to note, if this facility was 500 feet away from the 7-Eleven lot line, we wouldn't be here discussing this today. We'd have a gas facility by right, and as long as you get your SDP and your permits, it's shovel ready, okay? We're asking for a waiver, and so those waivers were -- that waiver was justified through a number of means that I will stand behind, but staff did bring to my attention that they would prefer to have a true market assessment, true market study, and per the public that brought that up, we will oblige. And so that will back that up in September with a little bit more substantiation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I think it's prudent on your behalf, because otherwise, if it's challenged, somebody could claim that staff didn't comply with the rules. So it's -- MR. WESTER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So do I hear a motion to approve to -- go ahead. Oh, Michelle, go ahead. Sir, public -- public discussions are closed. July 17, 2025 Page 47 of 82 MR. CiPOLLA: It's not important. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know it's important to you, but the public discussions are closed. MR. SPOKOJNY: What I'm saying is you need to adjourn both because, otherwise, one is going to go to the County Commission without the other. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That will not happen, sir. That's not the intent. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: My question is, in that market study -- because my question was why 24 pumps. MR. WESTER: It's 24 -- yeah, it's 24 fueling positions, so it's 12 pumps. So one pump, and there's -- on either side is the actual fueling position. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Just maybe some justification as to how you came up with that. MR. WESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That would be good. MR. WESTER: Absolutely. We can -- and we'll provide that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: To piggyback on that, how many are at the North Naples. Just curious. MR. WESTER: Is it -- 16. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Sixteen. So you're looking for 50 percent increase? MR. WESTER: Sixteen fueling positions. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And this would be 24 fueling positions? MR. WESTER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many are at the -- up in Fort Myers at the -- MR. WESTER: The new one in Estero? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, Estero. MR. WESTER: I did the rezoning on that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's bigger. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: At least. MR. WESTER: At least 24. It's got its own separate outparcel. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Separate outparcel. MR. WESTER: I did the rezoning on that one for -- that gas facility specifically related on its own outparcel, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Do I hear a motion or a second to continue? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motion to continue. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, are you on the line? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yep. Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposed. So it's continued. Staff? MR. BOSI: Just to note, we'll work with the applicant on the date, the 4th and the 21st. July 17, 2025 Page 48 of 82 We'll work with the applicant on that -- specifically the date, and just let the Planning Commission know that we will readvertise, on the Clerk's website, the notification of that meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the intent -- we're still going to hear the second petition, so we've not continued the second petition. But the intent -- staff will still bring both petitions to the Board at the same time. MR. BOSI: Staff will coordinate with the County Manager's Office, and I am sure that they want this as a companion item before the Board of County Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Companion item. MR. BOSI: -- and not two separate -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We're heard public speaking. Sir, the public discussion's closed. MR. CiPOLLA: I just have -- I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you, sir. You can talk to us after the meeting or during the break. MR. WESTER: And Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. So, yes, both of these -- the intention is to bring both of these back at the same time to the full County Commission, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So on this petition for the insubstantial change, do we want to review each one to make sure we -- staff -- as far as my commissioners on how they -- any questions specifically on each of the requests? The first one is the light -- the height of the light poles, LDC Section 4.02.08, for relief of the maximum light pole height of 25 feet. And, Brad, I understand you have a -- MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- you want to show us a detail. MR. WESTER: I have it up on the screen, Mike. Podium computer. Thank you, sir. Okay. So this is a depiction of, essentially, a spec sheet, right, an architectural plan of the actual light, LED light, 36 and a half feet tall. You see it's got a concrete base, about roughly a 2-foot concrete base, and from that concrete base, you know, the total there, including where it's at the ground at grade, is a height of 36 and a half feet. So that's a depiction of that. And then, Mike, I've got another one that I need to pull up here. And this is a depiction of it in the real-world scenario. So you can see the lights there. And I'll pull my cursor over it so you see that same light style, okay, the single head -- LED head, if you will. You see them around the property. And this one is -- this is the actual image, so this one is another good one because it shows that actual light pole in context to a very similar size Costco elevation. So you see in conjunction with the trees there, the 36 and a half foot light pole, it kind of goes away from, you know, the visual aspect compared to the 25-foot height. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. WESTER: More importantly, it would reduce it by up to 13 poles and meet the lighting standards. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next item is LDC Section 4.05.04.C, and that's relief from additional requirements to obtain a variance to provide double the interior landscaping if commercial projects include more than 120 percent of the required parking. Do we have any questions in regards to that variance? Go ahead, Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I understand that doubling the landscaping may be excessive, but would you be willing to, like, increase it at all to have some additional landscaping there, maybe beyond -- MR. WESTER: Yeah. We would proffer a self-enhanced landscaping. The issue is we have a very strict code that we're trying to adhere to with the landscape architect in the county to make sure some of the trees don't conflict with the lights. And then again, the lights in the actual vehicular circulation areas. And all that's, in some ways, tied to landscaping. So when you add an July 17, 2025 Page 49 of 82 overabundance amount, I think it's most important to provide it maybe in some of the perimeter buffers. So maybe offset the -- the landscaped islands are still going to have the code requirement as per the 100 percent parked property. It's the 120 percent rule that is in question here. And keep in mind we meet the code for the property in bulk. It's the FP&L easement that's got the -- we call it overflow parking, and that's really all that's going to go there. And in that FP&L parking is the reason why it trips that 120 percent threshold, which then puts the landscaping all back on the main property, because FP&L typically doesn't like to have a ton of landscaping that could grow high in their -- they have their specific standards in their overhead power line easement. But we can certainly enhance some areas. As a matter of fact, I was talking to a gentleman out there about working with Costco specifically on maybe some of the locations for some screenage and some buffering of that perimeter buffer for landscaping and the trees and vegetation types maybe where there's a vista to maybe the residential community in the rear. So we can self-proffer that. I just can't -- I don't know the amount right now, but I will pledge to -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I appreciate that thought. MR. WESTER: I'll pledge to add some more landscaping in certain areas we think they're probably the most valuable in terms of beyond the code requirement. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you so much. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. I just -- what's the percentage of parking? You're going more than 120 percent? MR. WESTER: It is, yeah. We have -- right now we have 103. We're 103 percent that's in the parking area itself, so we're technically more than 100 but less than 120, but then when you add the overflow, it's over 120. I'm not sure of the exact percentage. Do you know the exact percentage? I'm asking my staff right now. I know that we tripped 120 percent, and so -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I just feel that that code is there for a reason. I don't really see a reason why we need to just steer away from this variance or where we need to grant this variance. I understand the FP&L -- it is just the FPL road that is the question, but it is still considered overflow parking. I think that the landscaping provides noise buffers and drainage -- I think that there's benefits to this, and there's reasons why this code was put in effect, so I don't -- I just don't understand why we need to provide a variance just because. I didn't hear any reason other than, "We don't want to buy it." MR. WESTER: I understand. Yeah, Brad Wester. We're working with the landscape architect, Mark Templeton, right now, and he is -- and that's a parallel course with the SDP, right? So we're working with the site plan development approval process right now. And so we are in with landscape reviewers at the county reviewing all this, and so they understand that what we're asking for does not need to be provided into this because they -- this is part of the request for the landscaping variance, if you will, the waiver, because they've already approved the amount of landscaping going in the landscape islands so they don't conflict with the lights poles. You're going to have trees growing up under the lights, and then what that does is kind of disturb the photometric plan on its, you know, use into the parking areas and the travel areas of the parking lot. And so, you know, what we could do is enhance the perimeter buffer a little bit. But the landscape islands are really tight. What it does is it forces the landscape islands to double in size, like actual, like, horizontal width of the area, not just the amount of trees that are put in there. And so -- and then, ultimately, the parking does not work. The amount of spaces that are required for Costco does not work, and so that's one of the asks for the relief in this context; July 17, 2025 Page 50 of 82 whereas, it's been deemed insubstantial as well because we can provide that same code-required landscaping around the entire buffer and the code-required landscaping in the parking area and the parking field itself. We're not asking for a waiver for that. We're just asking for it not to be doubled. And it's not just double the amount of install and the type of species. It's literally the horizontal area of that space as well, which starts to pinch circulation areas and traffic and parking spaces. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So I think what's on the approval for here, if I'm not mistaken, is you're asking for a variance on it, and if we approve this, you could pretty much just go back to the normal -- whatever the 100 percent is or -- whatever the 100 percent is. You're not required to put any more than what was there to begin with. But now you're over the 120 percent threshold. If I approve it, then you just have to go back to the 100 percent and there's -- there's -- MR. WESTER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: -- no -- like, would you -- can you do 50 percent more, not double? You're not giving -- we need some back and forth here. MR. WESTER: I understand. I understand. And some of the issues that lie in this is the ability to have the parking in that FP&L easement. And FP&L likes to have -- they can have horizontal improvements, but they like to have it free and clear so their trucks can get in there whenever it's needed to repair and maintain their lines -- their poles and their lines. And so adding additional amounts of landscaping in that area really is kind of a disservice to FP&L, albeit we still provide it in the perimeter buffer areas. So that's really the biggest element to this variance request or waiver request is the fact that those additional parking, the overflow parking, meets Costco's needs to have that count and then also meets FP&L needs to not load up their landscape -- I'm sorry -- their power line easement with trees and vegetation and landscaping. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, you're going to be restricted from growing -- MR. WESTER: We will. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- planting trees in the FP&L easement -- MR. WESTER: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- because they -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: And I would be completely okay with having nothing in the FPL easement, but to not -- to not satisfy anything in -- and to not give anything for the other 100 percent parking... MR. WESTER: So what we can do is I think we can probably add 25 percent more and find it a place to go into the perimeter buffer areas. There are a lot of areas between us and the hospital. That's right. As long as we can -- yes, so what we'll do is we'll add 25 percent more, and we'll do it in the buffers and not the landscape islands, per se, because it will conflict with the parking spaces and the lights, but we'll put it in the more meaningful places, maybe against the hospital property up in the -- on that edge, and some more other vistas. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would prefer it in the buffer, absolutely. MR. WESTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: And I would be okay with that. MR. WESTER: And we can do that. And so we'll do that, and we can amend the language with staff on that, yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just to clarify, I understood correctly, this waiver would have required you to make I'll call it the island, the end cap island, to physically be twice as large? MR. WESTER: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So that -- MR. WESTER: Because the reason why -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: That cuts into the pathway of a car. MR. WESTER: That's correct, sir. That's correct. And the reason why is because you can July 17, 2025 Page 51 of 82 only put so much landscaping in one spot. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. MR. WESTER: It starts cannibalizing off itself from the root ball and the irrigation it needs and so forth. So what you do is you double that island size, and then you put that same amount of landscaping in there. So it's not so much a vertical impediment, but it spreads out through the parking lot to pinch circulation, traffic movement, way finding. And we felt it was better used in other places. And in this case, we'll add 25 percent -- not 100 percent more -- but 25 percent more in the buffer areas, not the parking islands, and that will work. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I think that's a good compromise. MR. WESTER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I recorded 25 percent increase in landscaping in the buffer area. MR. WESTER: Yeah, yeah, that's doable. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Four and five have to do with massing and glazing reliefs. Any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And six had to do with the maximum signage square footage. I've already talked to Brad. I see no need for the sign on the south side of the building. Everybody knows the color of a Costco, which is different than Home Depot which is different than Walmart. And we can go to the different colors, but Costco has a unique branding with striping. But I don't see any need for the sign on the wall facing south, so I would agree. I would propose no sign on the south wall or -- you already removed it from the east, so you basically have it on the north and the side facing, of course, Collier Boulevard. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. And during the break, it was very timely, I talked to my team and the architects and the Costco executives, and we will also oblige with that to remove that sign on let's call it the hospital frontage, the hospital side, because we still have a Costco sign that -- it faces Collier in that corner of the building. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. WESTER: And that does the same purpose. And so we will pull that signage off, and then we'll remove the square footage difference. We were asking for 375 feet -- or 376 square feet over, so that will draw down from that, and we'll remove that signage. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you still have the distinctive stripe on the building. MR. WESTER: Oh, we do, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So that's -- MR. WESTER: Yeah. The architecturals stay the same, and the request will stay the same based on the four and five requests that we just made for the glazing and the architect -- trellises, the trellis work, the planted structural trellises that we're going to add to it to break up that visual massing, so yes, in addition to the signage coming off of that. And it's the south elevation, just to be clear on the record. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: In fact, you stated on the record it's only external lights, illumin -- MR. WESTER: That's correct. There's no -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There's no -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: -- no internal illumination. There's no LED lights and internal illumination in any signage. And so -- and just like our parking lot lights, a key differentiator between our facility, including the gas facility, is we're not 24/7. They go off at roughly 11 o'clock; is that right? Roughly 11 o'clock at night. So after the stores are closed, then only just security lighting around the building is on, including the gas station. Then they come back on in the morning before the sun comes up. And so that's a big differentiator, because then it goes completely dark in the July 17, 2025 Page 52 of 82 parking lots. The place is secure. And then the loading docks are still active at times when needed, but the truckers know how to get in there for the loading docks, again, and that's on the far opposite side from any residential. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just quick clarification, the east side of the building that has your auto entrance -- MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- is there a small Costco tire sign there? MR. WESTER: It just says "tire center," and it's for way finding so folks know exactly where to go for the tire center. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. WESTER: And it's, again -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And it's not very big? MR. WESTER: No, it's not big at all. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. MR. WESTER: That did also have to have -- it did have a Costco sign on there as well, and we pulled that off before this application was heard, but now we're asking for an amendment to that on the south elevation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only other one I missed was the number of loading docks. There was -- any questions on that? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: From 8 to 5? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: From 8 to 5. Makes sense to me. No issues. MR. WESTER: I think that's a great thing, right? This county requiring 8. We're asking for 5. And Costco knows how to do it best, so it's four at the actual warehouse and one at the gas facility for, you know, that tanker trucks to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So with that -- go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. Spoke with Mike Sawyer, and she spoke with -- he spoke with Trinity Scott, the head of Transportation, and we are not supporting the deferment of the bus -- of the CAT station. We think that being a 34-acre commercial -- or commercial node, 30-some acres going to Costco, the primary use of that node is going to be for Costco. So the primary traffic that you're going to see at this node is going to be for the Costco; therefore, it would justify at the time that Costco is developed that the gas -- or the bus stop be allocated. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Would that be on Collier Boulevard? MR. BOSI: No. It's as dictated by the Master Mobility Plan, which is a site along Rattlesnake Hammock. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is there bus service on Rattlesnake? MR. BOSI: There will be a bus stop that is -- that is currently required by the PUD to be located on Rattlesnake Hammock. CAT will have to modify their route to have a pull-off. It will be worked out during the SDP. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So the requirement still stands that there will be a CAT facility -- MR. BOSI: That's staff's -- that's staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and defined -- defined at -- during the SDP process. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Hey, Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Chuck, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: If I might just ask a question, Chair. Mike, when we put a bus stop on Rattlesnake, there's really not a turnaround on that road. So they would have to go down that -- to the cul-de-sac at the end and come around. Would we put other bus stops on that road -- because it's kind of long -- like in front of some of the other communities, or would it only be just right there in front of Costco? MR. BOSI: The current PUD references the location shown on the Master Mobility Plan. July 17, 2025 Page 53 of 82 The Master Mobility Plan shows that bus stop on Rattlesnake Hammock; that's what the current PUD commitment requires. There may some operational issues as we go through the Site Development Plan on those specifics that we may have to adjust accordingly. But I don't think that we have the flexibility based upon the current commitment to displace it to, say, Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So the bottom line is, at some point prior to final approval, a certificate of occupancy, we'll have to define the requirements through our alternative means of transportation through the bus services and CAT and whatever, where -- the best place to meet this requirement. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So we're not going to stipulate here, but it has to be coordinated with the staff. And it may be an operational thing. As Chuck just pointed out, it may not be conducive to put it on Rattlesnake because of an operational concern, but I'm going to leave that up to CAT to make the decision. MR. BOSI: And just to -- and I just wanted to -- staff is not supporting that. Obviously, you'll have your own recommendation related to that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So with that, I -- then, I have three stipulations if there's going to be a recommendation of approval. One is the 25 percent increase in the landscaping in the buffer, removal of the sign on the south side of the building, and coordination with CAT for -- to meet the requirement of some kind of a bus service or facilitate a bus service operation to service this site to meet the requirements of the PUD -- of the DRI and the PUD. MR. BOSI: And I appreciate that, because that gives the CAT system a little bit more flexibility in case they do have to make some tinkering to make it functionally operational. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. And I don't see -- I just can't see CAT wanting to pull into that parking lot for bus service. It just -- I don't think -- I think it would be really disruptive. So I'll leave it up to CAT. Let them decide. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Will CAT go after that problem or opportunity during the Site Development Plan? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They should. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I mean, that's the appropriate time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They coordinate during the SDP process and where it's going to have -- because it's going to have to be defined on the Site Development Plan. MR. BOSI: And just to let the Planning Commission know, they've gotten through their first review, and that was one of the comments from Jaime's reviewer -- Ms. Cook's reviewers, that the CAT system -- or the CAT bus stop was required. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Brad, as far as of the entrance from the hospital, your statement to me when we met was the hospital fully supports and there's no opposition from the hospital operationally or otherwise. MR. WESTER: That's correct. Yep, that's correct. Brad Wester. The hospital's approved the easement form and its signatures with its lender consents under an escrow with the title company, and recordation of that pending of that easement, which gives a specified left-out and right-in only from that loop road at the hospital, then providing a traffic light option heading to the south. And so the hospital consents to it, and it's in the attorney's hands right now. The wet ink has been produced and signed. It's waiting for the title company to get it all wrapped up and recorded. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Do I hear recommendations? Anyone? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For the whole thing? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the whole thing, yeah. We're not doing each variance separately. I mean, it's all -- we've already stated the stipulations. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Three stipulations. I would like to move forward with a proposal to push forward -- I don't know the number. July 17, 2025 Page 54 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I'll give you the number here. It's a -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: PL202 -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: PL -- I should just look at it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 200240011559. That's the Costco wholesale PDI request. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct -- request with the three stated stipulations that need to accompany this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor -- all in -- second here from Mike and Chuck. Okay. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed? Any opposition? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. It passes unanimously. For the public's concern, this matter will be brought to the Board. The petitioner's coming back with the -- to meet the requirements specifically, and what we'll address only at that meeting will be the market study. And the public, again, is certainly encouraged to come back if they want to discuss their concerns with that -- with the waiver, but with that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is just a hypothetical, and you may not want to answer it. But if we reject the ASW, will you go to another site, or will you just drop the gas? You don't have to answer if you don't want. I just saw your face, so... MR. WESTER: So this is a unified development plan, and it has always been that way. So the gas goes with the store. And we've heard a lot of speculation today about everybody playing real estate broker and real estate agent to find us other sites, but we're here to talk about this one, and it's site specific. That's my response. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, we're going to proceed to the next item, but to -- so, Mr. Yovanovich, I think you're next. We're going to take a five-minute break so you can get ready for your petition. Thank you very much. (A recess was had from 1:13 p.m. to 1:19 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. I know Mr. Yovanovich was anxiously waiting all morning. He certainly enjoyed his morning spending it with us. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just thankful you didn't call me up on Hacienda. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Next petition is PL20240010278, which is the Forest Glen of Naples PUD amendment. And with that, I would ask, do we have any disclosures? MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich concerning this petition, and staff materials. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. July 17, 2025 Page 55 of 82 COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Mike, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials; conversation with Mike Bosi; conversation with the petitioner's attorney, Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, visited the site, spoke with Rich Yovanovich, and met with staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Can I ask all members who wish to speak, please rise and be sworn in. 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: With that, Mr. Yovanovich, the floor is yours. MR. ARNOLD: Actually, Mr. Arnold will start. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates, here representing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We look very similar. MR. ARNOLD: -- the commercial tract, Forest Glen. Yes, my twin brother, Rich and I, are here. With us also is Jim Banks, our traffic -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, Mr. Banks, your other brother there. MR. ARNOLD: Triplets. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Norm Trebilcock's back there, too, so we can bring them all up. MR. ARNOLD: So we're here representing the commercial tract at Forest Glen, which some of you were probably on the Planning Commission a couple years ago when we came through and modified some of the uses of this tract to allow for the current flex office and warehouse uses that are approved today. One of the amendments we're proposing to you today is simply to allow one of those buildings to be utilized for pickleball services. So there's a few locations in the schedule of uses that need to be modified to show that standard industrial classification code manual change. There's also an amendment to the master plan. There was an old overall master plan that was recorded with the original that showed the access to Collier Boulevard. There was a subsequent amendment to this tract only, and it affected only this tract that was a PDI several years ago that showed the access directly to Beck Boulevard to our north. This is the current master that showed the connection only to Beck Boulevard. The proposed master plan, we changed the access to simply, instead of showing just the direct connection to Beck Boulevard, we're showing it with an alternative access also to the east to connect to potentially the frontage road that exists there. So that's one of the changes. You'll see the other highlighted change on this westernmost building which is where the indoor pickleball facility could be located. So nothing else in the development standards have changed. We've changed those two aspects of the master plan and the text to reflect the pickleball facility. I think, in a nutshell, that's it. We held our NIM. I know Mr. Craig is here representing the Forest Glen Property Owners Association. They don't agree with our access changes, but we think that it makes a lot of sense to have this as an alternative when we get to the site plan stage to potentially go to the east rather than a direct connection. So... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wayne, two questions I have. One is in regards to this -- and Rich asked -- I asked Rich when I talked to him on the phone, but this is separate from any operations at Forest Glen. This is a separate business. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. This is separately owned. It may be part of the master July 17, 2025 Page 56 of 82 association, but it's not functionally interconnected with anything else in Forest Glen. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And this is, what, a members kind of a facility? Small -- will there be kind of a -- oh, gosh, what am I thinking of? Like a little refreshment area in -- it's going to be a club environment. Pickleball and -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, pickleball group that they were talking to. You would have a small cafe that's associated with it, and it also has a shower room, et cetera. But otherwise, it's indoor courts, and we've specified indoor-only activities. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Indoor only. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The access point, your preference is to go to the east through the Forest Glen entrance point, which you'd have to get approval because that's their bridge, correct? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know who owns the bridge, honestly. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: But it's in right-of-way of the South Florida Water Management District. So this is the location of the existing bridge that serves the maintenance facility for Forest Glen. It serves the fire station, and then, obviously, you could see where we could connect to it here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It also serves the fire station. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And is there -- had you done any due diligence with regards to legality of -- do they have legal access across there? Because my preference is you go through that entrance rather than build -- have another location, but I can't deny you your access to Beck Avenue. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're asking for today is the ability to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Either/or, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- work with the fire district and Forest Glen to do what the county would prefer -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is to use the already existing bridge. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the county staff's preference. Otherwise, we'll build what was previously approved, which would be another bridge over -- directly connecting to Beck, which will limit our access to a right-in, right-out access which will force U-turns at some point -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- onto Beck if we can't work something out to use the existing bridge. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The intersection improvements there, going on right now, the I-75 interchange, would that impede in any way your ability to have a direct access if that's the only way you can get in off of Beck? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We will get that direct access. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because the -- originally, this project was supposed to access Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: But with the changes that were made there, that forced the access onto Beck. And we'll get access on Beck. It will either be a right-in, right-out where it currently is, or we'll work something out to share the existing bridge which would then allow left turns to go back towards Collier Boulevard instead of going out and doing U-turns. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Question, I don't know, maybe for Mike or either of you two gentlemen. Will that current bridge support whatever the estimated traffic July 17, 2025 Page 57 of 82 number would come through and delivery trucks or anything else? Physically support and -- as far as size and traffic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It supports the fire engines. It's a fire station. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah, that's right. There's a tanker truck. We know it's good. MR. ARNOLD: The bridge itself, yes. There's a current turn lane that services that. And we've looked at the geometry, and we can accommodate left movements as well as retain the left turns into Bush Boulevard, which is the access point directly to the east on Beck Boulevard. So functionally it can work, and, of course, the bridge structure is -- Mr. Schmitt mentioned that it's satisfying fire truck activity, so we're pretty confident that the box trucks and things that would service flex spaces and regular automobiles have no issues. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I didn't go out there. Is it -- basically, it looks like a land bridge with a culvert underneath? MR. ARNOLD: It is, yes. It's a culvert, yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody else? Mike. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Petscher. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I have a couple -- who built the bridge? Who owns the bridge? Who is it deeded to? Is there -- and say -- I think I know the answer to this, but is there an easement or a -- yeah, is there an easement between whoever owns this bridge and the fire district? MR. YOVANOVICH: What I've seen so far, which I will tell you may not be the complete set of documents, so I hesitate to tell you I know for certain. I know that the bridge was built by the original developer of Forest Glen. That I know. I know they have a license -- from what I've seen from the public records, they got a license from the South Florida Water Management District for that bridge. I know that the developer of Forest Glen then worked with the fire district to allow the fire district to use the bridge. I don't know -- I've heard both -- I've heard multiple things, and I'm just telling you this just gives us the opportunity to have further discussions with who may be the bridge owner, and we'll have to discuss this with Forest Glen to talk to them about the use of the bridge. So I don't -- that's a long-winded answer to "I don't know for sure exactly who owns this bridge," but the documents I've seen so far indicate that it was built by the original developer. The original developer probably assigned it to the master association. But I haven't seen any documentation yet. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So -- I'm sorry. I'm just -- so you're here today because, one, you want to add a pickleball facility and also, two, you're asking to use the bridge, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We're asking for the right -- the ability to -- right now if you go back to -- I'm sorry, went the wrong way. Whoops. That's the existing master plan, and that just shows a north/south connection directly to Beck. What we're asking for by making that modification is we either go north/south or we go to the east. And if we can work out the ability to use the bridge, I know the county would prefer we use the bridge, but they may not be the last person to say that we have the right to use the bridge. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. Yeah -- no. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. We're just trying to get the option. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll wait to hear what Forest Glen says and stuff, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any other of the other commissioners have any questions? Mr. Schumacher, commissioner, do you have any concerns? Questions? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, sir. No. I kind of vetted through them with July 17, 2025 Page 58 of 82 Rich. Yeah, I'm still here. You got me? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Let me turn to staff. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, I'm good. I don't have anything. MR. BOSI: As contained within the staff report, staff is recommending approval. We do recognize that it does have an unusual aspect that it -- the access to Beck Boulevard is still in question, but as the applicant says, this gives them the option to go to the existing bridge, or, if they have to build a new bridge, if they're denied access from their easement holder over there on the right. So either way, staff is supporting the petition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And in simple terms, it's just a matter of change of use -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- to a pickleball with an option of an entrance. MR. BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mike, you would have no problems or difficulties with two access points being, I don't know, 300 feet away, 400 feet? Well, 6-, 700 feet. MR. BOSI: Well, it's staff's preference that -- utilizing the existing egress/ingress to Beck Boulevard, but as the applicant has said, that might not be -- we might not be the last in line to make that decision. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. But there's no legal statute that says we can't have two access points a thousand -- under a thousand feet apart or something? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, the other -- the other legal aspect is we have to provide them access. If we deny access, my understanding is the county has to buy the property. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's a state statute. You have to provide access. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So we have to allow them to do it? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's a parcel, and -- MS. LOCKHART: Landlocked. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah. It's landlocked. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it's basically landlocked. But they already have approval off of Beck Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay, yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Are there any public comments? MR. SABO: One public speaker, Tim Craig. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Craig. MR. CRAIG: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Were you here all morning listening to -- MR. CRAIG: Yeah. I did want to lighten things up a little bit and say I do not have an opinion on Costco, if that's all right. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Do you have a member card, though? MR. CRAIG: I won't disclose that; that might be a conflict of interest. No. So we're Forest Glen -- so I'm the general manager at Forest Glen, and we are in full support of what the developer is putting in there of the pickleball courts and the design and everything; however, we are not in favor of the frontage driveway use, because that is our driveway for our maintenance facility. Our maintenance facility is a very busy area with large trucks, deliveries. I'm getting 30 truckloads of sand this week that will be lined up out there. I don't know how that would work for the developer with people coming in and out there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How does that impact the fire district, then? MR. CRAIG: Yeah. So we work really close with them over there. You can see -- I gave you some overheads. I think they're loaded up. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, it's a point of interest, Tim, but it really -- it isn't a matter of denial because they already have access off of Beck Boulevard. I mean, if they can work July 17, 2025 Page 59 of 82 that out, that's fine. But go ahead. MR. CRAIG: Okay. So I just have some highlighted notes here, if I could just go through that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. CRAIG: So we share the same driveway with the fire station out to Beck, as you can see on Page 2. Page 3 -- if you could just scroll through as I go here -- shows the approved plan, which you already have up there -- I'm sorry for repeating that -- to build their own bridge over the canal, when hopefully -- and hopefully at that point they could clean up maybe some of that frontage area along Beck, which is a whole 'nother subject. I've been working really close with Mr. LoCastro and staff actually trying to figure out who owns -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Who owns it. MR. CRAIG: -- who owns that whole area out there. And I've talked with -- I had a meeting with DOT in regards to, okay, you're moving along really nice on this flyover project, and I just want to make sure that you're going to landscape this and make this entryway into East Naples look presentable. And everyone's looking at each other going, "It's not in our budget. It's not in our budget." So that's a whole 'nother subject that I'm working with Commissioner LoCastro on, and staff, and I've met with him. So anyways, the original plan was to, obviously, go north/south and out for the developer, and that would align with the Tollgate Boulevard across the street, across Beck. So, you know, it just sort of feels like from a Forest Glen standpoint that anyone that wants to save a million, million and a half, $2 million on a bridge is probably a good idea on their side, but it's going to inconvenience and cause more issues for Forest Glen operations. So we would like for them not to use our driveway. And the reason I call it our driveway is because, actually, our mailbox for our Forest Glen maintenance facility management is out on Beck Boulevard. If that was a real road and a frontage road to be used for this many trips, you'd think it would have a name at this point, right? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. CRAIG: So we share this driveway with the fire station. So Page 4 shows with pink arrows where they would connect, which you've already seen. And let's see here. If you go to -- if you see on Page 4 -- actually, you can see right there next to the -- in front of the fire house, that's two fire trucks out in front. That's where they train, and that's where they do maintenance, that's where they test their engines. So I don't know how you can have two-way traffic going east/west over a bridge and past a fire station there when the fire station uses it in this manner. So again, it's our driveway that we share with the fire station. It's a very dangerous, weird, 90-degree turn there in front of our maintenance facility. And yeah, the last thing is is we actually had a break-in at our golf maintenance facility this last winter. They stole -- the thief stole $25,000 worth of hand tools, weed eaters, Flymos, blowers. I don't want any more people driving by seeing what's going on. They're going to come across that bridge. They're going to drive right into our yard thinking we're the pickleball place, and we're going to have all this conflict with our heavy equipment for the golf course, dump trucks, all of our deliveries, our employees. And we're just going to have a big conflict there, and it's going to be more exposure. I don't need that with what's going on, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, it's -- quite frankly, it's an issue between you and developer of the site. They still have -- the option for us is they have the direct access north to Beck Boulevard. So we're not -- we're only voting that there is an option available, and if they can negotiate the option, it's acceptable in the zoning. But for now, it's -- all we're really dealing with is the use and the option that they can go that direction, so... COMMISSIONER SHEA: We can't make a recommendation -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: We can't make a recommendation. July 17, 2025 Page 60 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We can make a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- that they have their own entrance and not use -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We can, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think we should. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't know if -- I think we could -- I would prefer to leave that up to -- because it puts a -- it puts another condition on if they can reach an agreement. I don't know if -- it sounds like they never will. But if we say no, then they are forced to Beck Boulevard, and we're complicating traffic issues on Beck Boulevard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me give you a third option. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Before you speak, may I? Sir, you gave a good presentation, and I recognize your ideas, thoughts, concerns, okay. And I understand what the county would like, to have one access point that does allow you to turn left, head west on Beck, instead of forcing a right only and then U-turns and everything else. And just for fun, let's say that new bridge and everything they would need to do would be as you joked, one and a half million dollars. Well, if you could come up with a negotiation and the art of the deal, right, of let's say the petitioner says, you know what, we'll do 500- or 600- or $650,000 of improvements for all of us to allow us to use that bridge to make all of us happy. They'll take care of proper signage in front of your place. This is just hypothetical. Making sure that the fire department has a proper place to park their truck if they're doing service or maintenance. Just with everything that goes on in the world today, if two people are able -- or two groups are able to sit down and you talk intelligently, blue sky a bunch of ideas and say, how can we make this work for both, is there an opportunity for a discussion like that with all parties to take place? MR. CRAIG: My ears are always open. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But just a thought, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but what I'm also suggesting all this does is gives us an opportunity to talk. And if we can't get Tim comfortable that this all works, okay, we don't get Tim comfortable that it works. But what if I worked with the fire district and I build a different bridge? What if I build a bridge adjacent to his bridge or slightly to my west of that bridge and we work it out that way? And then I can my -- I still get my lefts out. He has what he wants, which is a direct bridge to his maintenance facility. That's a third option. So I don't want -- I don't want to give up the ability to talk to everybody about something that may work. It may not work to use his bridge. It may work that we build a different bridge, or we just built what we originally had. But as long as you're talking, there's an opportunity to solve a problem. But if you take -- you take the arrows off, there's no opportunity to talk. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No. I have full intention to vote for your ability to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just trying to respond to some of your colleagues. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- go with the original proposal to have your direct access. I just wondered if there was something else that together could be done, but I think enough said. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know -- and it may not work out. It may not work out, but it may work out. I mean, he brought up somebody making the landscaping look pretty. You know, maybe that's an opportunity. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I would prefer that we to leave it open. I mean, you do have the access. You can go north. If there's something that can be worked out to restrict the entry point off of Beck, that's preferable, but I'm not going to dictate -- I'm not -- I don't see any reason to dictate it. I leave it up to you to work it out with Forest Glen, or you just build your bridge. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. July 17, 2025 Page 61 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, I don't -- Michelle, do you have a -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I was just going to throw out another option. Because when I drove through this area, I didn't even notice your workshop -- maintenance facility. There's so much trees there, foliage that I didn't even see it, that -- perhaps even a gate or increased landscaping to avoid it. But I think the only way you know that that's there is if you know that that's there. MR. CRAIG: And that's why I don't like people driving by it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: You can't see it. But it would -- in my mind it's kind of silly to add another bridge that's -- when you already have one that's -- it's just another -- another option to consider. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think there are a lot of options to discuss. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: In fairness to Tim, he's got to decide and his clients have got to decide whether they want to work with -- if we can get to where we get them comfortable. We're just asking for the ability to talk to them to try to get them comfortable and not have to come back and amend the PUD again. MR. CRAIG: If I may, why haven't we talked about this since the NIM presentation before I had to come waste a day here listening to Costco? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer. MR. CRAIG: That's sort of the -- the flavor of the water. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I'd rather not air dirty laundry in a public hearing. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, Chuck, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, sir, I do not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. And this does not require EAC approval. Do I hear a motion to approve the request as presented? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No like -- no opposition. It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. ***We're going to the next petition, which is Brightshore. That's PL20240007926, Brightshore Village SRA-A on the north side of Immokalee Road, northeast intersection of Immokalee Road and Red Hawk. So as they're setting up here, we'll take a 30-second pause. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For station identification. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For station identification. Okay. Rich, all yours. Have we got any disclosures? MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. July 17, 2025 Page 62 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich about this in -- regarding this petition, and staff materials I reviewed. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Ditto. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, spoke with staff, spoke with Rich Yovanovich. I did not go out to the site. That's too far for the day. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials and a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, please rise to be sworn in. Any public speakers, please rise. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please rise. 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.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to do a brief overview of what this petition is, and if you have specific questions about the master plan and all that, I have Chris Scott. Steve Sammons is here to talk about any landscaping questions you may have, and Norm Trebilcock is here to talk about any transportation-related concerns. But the staff materials are very detailed, and I did have the opportunity to talk to all of you, except for Mr. Shea, with regard to the requested petition. But this is the location of Brightshore Village. It's an already approved SRA. And we are making some relevant minor tweaks to the PUD related to -- mainly related to modifying the request because we're setting aside some right-of-way for Immokalee Road, and in doing that, we changed the size of the village to take that land out so we don't basically have to spend SRA or SSA credits to entitle lands we're giving to the county. So that's basically what those revisions are, and those revisions resulted in our expanding some lakes. We're going to continue to have a county park that we talked about; it's just going to be a little bit more narrow. So the public access doesn't change. We're going to modify the village center to provide for a transitional area where we can have the additional use of an RV park. And then we identified the county's parcel, and we added an access point here and -- Chris -- here, right? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we added two access points along Immokalee Road as part of this process. Staff's recommending approval of everything but a requested deviation to basically growing in the landscape buffer in that area of the project. This is really hard for a guy who can't do directions when it's oriented -- north is to the right, and so -- whatever direction that is, there's a buffer that we're required to do. Right now it would cost us roughly a quarter of a million dollars to install a temporary irrigation pipe to grow in some live oak trees that are basically 25 feet on center. Am I right? Thirty feet on center -- that we can grow in successfully by using water trucks. And I know there's this thought that, "Well, it's only $250,000 on this big, huge project. Just suck it up." Well, no. That's $250,000 that doesn't need to be spent to grow in these live oak trees. And we would rather not spend that money on growing in trees with a temporary irrigation -- irrigation line to do that. So that's where we disagree with staff. We think we could accomplish that -- we know we can accomplish the same healthy trees that are drought-tolerant trees, which Collier County wants you to do out in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use -- I'm sorry -- in the RLSA. So that's it. That's where we disagree with staff. Everything else staff agrees with our requested changes. And that's the crux of the issue. So I can do a much longer -- I can have everybody take you through all the details if you want, but that's where we are. That's the issue on this petition, and that's where we disagree with July 17, 2025 Page 63 of 82 staff. And we think it's unnecessary to spend a quarter of a million dollars for an irrigation main when we can accomplish the same growing through the use of water trucks. So that's where we're at. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Sparrazza, question? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mr. Yovanovich, is there a better or worse time throughout the year to try to accomplish what you're doing? MR. YOVANOVICH: We will plant these during the rainy season. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as -- if necessary, we will have water trucks supplement what God gives us to grow -- to grow the trees in. If you're worried about long-term maintenance, this project has a community development district already approved for it. So you have a local governing body that's going to make sure that what gets planted stays. We also have a period where staff has to confirm that everything is healthy and grown in. And if it's not, we replace them, and we go back to replacing any trees that have any issues with the grow-in process. We're going to plant them during rainy season. That takes six to eight months, is my understanding, for them to become stabilized, to use a layperson's term, and then they're good to go. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And then after that, let's -- hypothetically, you plant them in April. Come next January, when it is the dry season, is there irrigation proposed for that area? MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have -- no. That's the -- that's kind -- I'm trying not to use terminology that might come back and bite me. But that's an area, candidly, where it's to build these temporary irrigation mains. My understanding is there's a question about whether or not Collier County even has IQ water for us to use or would we have to use potable water? That's a question to -- why would we use potable water when we can use other means? But again, the condition -- or the deviation requires us to satisfy that they're in, they're healthy, and they're doing fine, and if there's a die-off sometime in the future, you have a community development district to fix the buffer if it -- if there's a death of any of the plants that didn't survive, but that's normal. You know, even with irrigation lines, some plants don't survive, and you replace them. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, can you tell me how your irrigation trucks or your water truck are -- are they going to go Red Hawk Lane, and if they go on Red Hawk Lane, do you have a right of access on Red Hawk? I'm just trying to figure out, you're telling me you've got irrigation trucks or water trucks, they've got to -- we're either going to put them in a barge and go down the lake or we're going to go down Red Hawk and -- whether we have clearance. Go ahead. MR. SCOTT: The irrigation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Your name, please, for the record. MR. SCOTT: Oh, sorry. Chris Scott, principal planner with Peninsula Engineering. The water trucks would utilize the linear park itself to traverse up. The Red Hawk right-of-way, right now there's still questions as to the ownership of that. It was never accepted by the county. So the water trucks would utilize the linear park itself. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's wide enough? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I guess you could, but -- Okay. My only concern is if we go with that option -- and I'm going to leave it up to my colleagues to discuss. But if we go with that option, that -- I would need very definitive language. We already have it in the code, but the onus now is on staff because staff, Jamie, whether it's Engineering or Code Enforcement, somebody's going to have to go out there and verify this, or you're going to have to provide some kind of reports. July 17, 2025 Page 64 of 82 I prefer that you provide some kind of periodic report to show the growth during the dry season and not put the onus on staff, and that's going to be a cost to you, both in your landscaping crew or whomever, and -- because my preference is -- I read the report, and I brought this up when I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. It says "undue hardship," and I'm going, "an undue hardship is not money." I mean, that's -- yeah, it's your hardship and not mine. And, I mean, the hardship is alleviated by spending the money to do -- to put the water service in. So in lieu of that, other than Code Enforcement trying to go out and validate that I have a healthy buffer, what's your proposal? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. We've provided -- in the justification we have a full watering schedule for how we will water these plants or the schedule for the water trucks to go out to establish the viability. We're also committing to provide quarterly reports, and that would last for at least the first three years. I mean, we plan on being out there for the long term. Our company will be out there probably for the next five to eight years as this project is coming online and homes are starting to be sold. So we have a vested interest that this is a sufficient buffer, and we will provide those reports to the county. So we have inspectors -- our own internal inspectors are out there regularly and will provide quarterly reports to Collier County Development Review Services and their landscape reviewers to demonstrate that the live oaks that are planted along Red Oak -- or Red Hawk are getting established and are healthy and are not in needing of replacement. And obviously, if there are any that are failing, then we would replace those. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'm also concerned about the -- any native grasses or whatever other type of landscaping you're going to put to supplement both the trees. But you're going to put other types of -- whether it's Bahiagrass or whatever you're going to put out there. I don't know. But I want to assure the viability of this especially during the growing season. After that you usually just depend on nature taking its course. MR. SCOTT: I do have Steve Sammons who's a landscape architect and much more fluent in the planting that we're doing. But I know we are committed entirely for Florida friendly planting. So once that -- those plantings are established, which typically are four to six months is my understanding, then they would remain viable just through the regular weather patterns here in Southwest Florida. But we would supplement, if there's any extended drought periods, with water trucks as needed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Petscher. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. Red Hawk is a dirt road that's maintained by the owners of the -- of the people on that road. If you're driving large water trucks down there, do you plan to also make improvements to the road? MR. YOVANOVICH: We were going to use -- I think what Chris said is we're going to use the linear park as our access. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not Red Hawk. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Is that going to be -- like, I know you're reducing the size of the park. Is there still going to be some sort of cart path or walking path around the entire facility -- or around the entire project, I guess I could say? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. There's an existing berm, so right at the edge of the Red Hawk, what is essentially an easement or a paper right-of-way. There's a berm. So as you get onto the Brightshore property and the linear park, there would be a drainage swale. So the first 25 feet is the buffer and drainage easement, then you have a 20-foot flat area that would include a multi-purpose pathway, and then you also have the lake maintenance easement. So that's an additional 20 feet on the east side of -- so in total you have about 65 feet. So flat area, slight slope as you get towards the lake to work with. And the landscaping is in the first 25 feet from the eastern boundary. Actually, I may have a -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So you're keeping the current ditch, I guess you could July 17, 2025 Page 65 of 82 say, that's already existing there, with buffer. And then inside of that you're making another right-of-way or easement? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. So this lower one is the -- I'm sorry. The lower section is the revised, so the right-of-way line is here. This is the existing swale along the edge of the roadway. That will be maintained. Drainage is collected in this channel, and then it slopes up, so you've got roughly 35 feet of flat area that is the buffer, the 20-foot-wide path -- free area that would include the 10-foot multipurpose trail, and then you get into the 20-foot lake maintenance easement before you hit the edge of water of the lake. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So no plans to improve Red Hawk? I know that was on the original -- original Brightshore. MR. SCOTT: There is a separate developer commitment. This application doesn't change that. The ownership is not -- we are committed to making improvements to a certain amount provided that the ownership interests work out to where we have the right to do that. Right now it does not appear we do. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Jaime, did you have a comment? MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, for the record. Commissioner, all I was going to address was your questions about enforcement. So if the -- if the idea for the report every three months is accepted, that would probably be similar to an SRA commitment or a PUD commitment that we have staff in Development Review that monitors all of those commitments. If they were to not turn in those reports, they would be referred to Code Enforcement for code action. Likewise, just -- even if we got beyond that point of three years when -- if any landscaping were to die or not survive or Development Review is out of there and the project has been turned over to the master association, if there's a code violation it would go through Code Enforcement action just like any other property would. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other comments, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, any comments? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, I am concerned about that -- the Red Hawk and going through the park to get there. But, I mean, obviously, there seems to be some type of miscommunication on -- nobody knows who owns what property. And water trucks on Red Hawk wouldn't work. So if the park's the best option, that's the best option for establishing that outside buffer landscaping without having to spend the money to put irrigation there. That's really the only comment I had, Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I mean, I prefer they use their own land. If it's wide enough and you can either put, you know, skid steers or whatever or some kind of motorized vehicle that you would run up and down there where you would have a water tank and water, that you stay off of Red Hawk. You don't own Red Hawk or whatever -- you don't have any right to use it unless you negotiate with the neighboring property. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a lot of property owners out there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle, did you have something? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I was just trying to -- trying to get clarification on Red Hawk. And maybe I missed this. So it is privately owned, Red Hawk? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yes. The county doesn't maintain it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Oh, okay. Okay. That was it. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Part of the surrounding neighborhood. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Because, yeah, there's a -- you can get on it from Immokalee. MR. YOVANOVICH: There are a lot of roads out east that are -- you physically can drive on them, but they're not owned by the county, and they're -- that's an issue throughout Golden Gate Estates and the eastern lands. July 17, 2025 Page 66 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Do we have any public speakers? MR. SABO: There are no public speakers registered. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'll close the public hearing and open it up for comments, Commissioners. I mean, the choice here, basically, is -- from the standpoint is they want to remove the requirement to provide water service to service this area. That's where staff disapproved. I would recommend if we -- and I'll leave it up -- to hear what you have to say, but I want a clear stipulation -- we identify and put a stipulation into the language, quarterly reports or somewhere somehow -- but a requirement that growth reports are submitted in a timely manner either with photographs, you know, electronic report of some sort into Jaime Cook's organization, so that -- that we validate that the growth is growing in accordance what is required so that we have a healthy buffer within the two-year period. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Chair, we would, then, need -- and we'll just convert our deviation that was the justification for that. We'll convert that into an SRA commitment. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That should address your concerns. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How are they structured? When everything's developed, is there an HOA? Is it privately owned? MR. YOVANOVICH: Typically. There's two options, usually. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, the only reason I said that is this kind of obligation will go with whatever that -- if it's an HOA, will go with whatever you assign to them. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be probably a community development district. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: A CDD. MR. YOVANOVICH: They already have a CDD, so they're going to have that obligation. They would have that obligation anyway. Either way -- at some point the developer is finished with the project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The developer assumes the responsibility to maintain that buffer in accordance with standards. Our concern is that it -- that in the time period specified that it grows and it's not abandoned. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we have every -- every interest in doing that because, candidly, that park is an amenity, so we want that park to look nice. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, even from a marketability standpoint, you'd -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If you're going to market homes there, you're going to want to put up -- have a pleasant-looking buffer, and I understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, staff? I think I've already asked you, but you guys -- I bypassed you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. You've already identified the one area we did not agree with was the linear park irrigation issue. That was the one area we did not agree. We'll let the Planning Commission know because there's no increase within an intensity or density associated with this, it did not require them to have to submit a fiscal analysis to show neutrality because the same conditions of intensity or density are existing. So that wasn't a component nor a requirement of this application. For all other aspects other than the one area we mentioned, or the Chair mentioned, we are in support of the application. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, open for a motion from my fellow commissioners. Anybody wish to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I guess I get leery. I kind of feel we should support staff, because if every time somebody comes in and disagrees with staff and we override them -- so I'm kind of torn as far as the water truck versus the irrigation system. July 17, 2025 Page 67 of 82 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But didn't staff agree to what we just came up with as a resolution? COMMISSIONER SHEA: What'd we come up with? MR. BOSI: We said if that's -- if that was the direction the Planning Commission wants to go, we would most certainly -- or would review the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: To meet the requirements -- MR. BOSI: Requirements for the reporting to that of the condition of the landscaping. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We would modify the SRA requirement with the stipulation of monitoring -- quarterly reports and monitoring over a two-year period the adequate -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Three. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Three-year period, thank you -- adequate growth of the buffer. And they would submit those reports so it's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Would you be okay with that, Mike? MR. BOSI: If that's -- if that's what the recommendation is. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'm asking you as a professional. You made a recommendation. MR. BOSI: I am not a landscape professional. I am a land-use professional. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Jaime. MR. BOSI: What I will say is, you know, their -- I understand it's in their best interest to maintain it. The one concern is, you know, the grass as well is part of the concern, to make sure, you know, through the drought periods it could be, you know, somewhat -- if they use, say, Bahiagrass, it does become a little bit sparse in drought conditions, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- before we finish, let me bring Steve up and tell you what's exactly going to be in the buffer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because -- so let's just do that, if that's okay. Steve. MR. SAMMONS: Good afternoon. Steven Sammons. I'm a landscape architect with Peninsula Engineering. When we brought up the possibility of using a water truck, which I would agree with, I chose the southern live oak as the buffer tree because it's extremely hearty, highly drought tolerant, and a Florida friendly native tree. Other types of plantings that we would put out there, we have to stabilize the soil, so some type of mulch, probably pine straw, another, you know, native type of mulch. And we would probably add, just to break it up some, some bunch grasses, a native cordgrass, for example, which takes hold very quickly with little to no supplemental water. And again, starting this in the rainy season so -- to help them establish. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there grass in that area besides -- MR. SAMMONS: No sod, no, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Pardon me? MR. SAMMONS: No sod, no. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Again, Jaime Cook, for the record. I was just going to say that when a request for a deviation comes in, we don't look at things like the cost to the applicant. That's not what we look at. We look at things like whether the site is constrained or it makes development impossible. However -- so as Mike said, however, if you choose to accept that as a commitment from the developer, staff will monitor that and move forward accordingly. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But we're also creating more work for staff and less work for them, correct? We're shifting more work to you to monitor it as opposed to an irrigation system. MS. COOK: They will have to do the monitoring and give me the report. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. July 17, 2025 Page 68 of 82 MS. COOK: And it's similar to any other commitment any other developer makes at time of zoning. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They have to develop the reports, submit the report, and get staff approval. MR. YOVANOVICH: And part of the justification is the county's utilities system out there is basically in its infancy. So they don't -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: They don't -- if you had the normal county facilities in this location, the additional expense to put the irrigation in wouldn't exist. So it's not -- this is not your typical this is what it would normally by cost to meet the code. If it was the typical expense, you know, we wouldn't be standing here. And I disagree with the Chairman when he says, you know, cost is not a hardship. It is a hardship when you're incurring additional costs above what's typically anticipated as part of the Land Development Code. So that's the reason we're asking for it. There's an alternative for a deviation as long as there's another alternative that gets you to the same place. I don't think anybody's disputing that you can use water trucks to grow in what we're providing. And you just had the professional testimony from a landscape architect that says these plants are going to survive and thrive after we use the alternative watering that we're talking about. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Chair, if I may say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Knowing now what they're going to be planting, because before -- it just mentioned drought-tolerant plants, and sometimes those are not the most attractive kind of things and don't hold up well in droughts. But being that they're selecting items that will hold up and there's this condition to have them monitor it regularly, I am in favor of this, in allowing them to use the watering trucks. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Provided they meet the stipulation? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So is that a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the motion is subject to the -- what agreed to by the petitioner that he would modify the SRA with the stipulation of providing a quarterly report to monitor the growth of the required buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: For three years. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For three years. And we have a motion and second. Can I hear -- a motion -- or a -- all who approve, can we hear like sign? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All right. That's it. It passes unanimously. We'll take a 15-minute break. (A recess was had from 2:11 p.m. to 2:19 p.m.) COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Chair, you have a live mic. July 17, 2025 Page 69 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Just to assure that we're going to have a quorum -- because we have one member who is going to leave and another member has to recuse herself from the vote, so I'm going to move the car storage facility first so we can go through that just to make sure we can vote on that. I don't think the other one's going to be a problem, but I would ask the petitioner to indulge so that we can make sure we get this through, this car storage first. So with that, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the owner of the property who is bringing forward the petitions. And I'm going to try to do this in an abbreviated manner because I've talked to everybody on the Planning Commission, and I know, Ms. McLeod, do you need to say you were going to recuse yourself on the record, or do I need to -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I think I have to -- Heidi, I have to explain why I'm recusing myself, correct, or I'm just recusing? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sorry, just briefly. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. I work for -- I work for a developer who is building a similar project on Airport Road. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And then, for the record, this is PL20240001079, the GMPA premier village -- or Premier Vehicle Storage commercial subdistrict. It's a subdistrict request. So, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Before you start, though, I have to go through disclosures. Amy. MS. LOCKHART: Text -- staff materials only. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about this. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and staff materials. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials, and I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, and I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All wishing to speak in this matter, please rise to be sworn in. 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: And with that, I turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich. You can start by saying -- where I interrupted you when you said you spoke to everyone. So go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. For the record, Rich Yovanovich again. I'm going to do a brief overview of what we're requesting. And I have Margaret Emblidge, who's our land planner here; Jim Carr, civil engineer; and I have Norm Trebilcock here to answer any question regarding the respective expertise. The request to amend the Growth Management Plan to establish a subdistrict on a 3.7-acre parcel of property and to rezone the property to PUD for, basically, car condos that could be owned, or they can be leased. It's -- the property is right here on your visualizer. It's along Santa Barbara. That's Polly Avenue, and that's Everett Street. This is a project that was developed under the infill provisions in your Growth Management Plan that would allow up to seven units per acre. This is a project that's an affordable housing project. If we were to use either of those two provisions in your Growth Management Plan, we could -- we can do seven units an acre or up to 16 units per acre. There are other projects in the area. Some of you were around when we did the Sandy Lane project for GL Homes and the ShadowWood project that's also, I believe, a GL Homes project. So it's an area that people are finding, and I know that the neighborhood -- I did both of July 17, 2025 Page 70 of 82 those projects, and I know the neighborhood was concerned about traffic throughout the neighborhood for both of those projects. And traffic was a concern when we had our neighborhood information meeting, and so was privacy for the people who lived right here (indicating) adjacent to our property. In response to those comments, we made changes to the architecture, the orientation of the buildings, and landscape buffers. So we increased and enhanced the landscape buffers along Santa Barbara, along Everett, along Polly, and along our eastern boundary to address the concerns, and we also committed that there could be no windows on the buildings that were facing east. There was concerns about privacy. Because these will be allowed to have mezzanines within them, and they wanted to make sure we didn't have any windows so when people were on the mezzanine, they could look out. So we have a prohibition in the PUD to address those concerns. We would be allowed a total of 60,000 square feet. I think that equates to 41 -- am I right? -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- 41 units on this parcel of property. It has a trip cap, I believe, of nine p.m. peak trips. So it's a very low traffic generator. I know I had many conversations with Mr. Bosi about this project, and his two concerns that -- and he'll correct me if I'm wrong -- is the first concern is, you know, you have an activity center basically a mile and a half to the north. Why don't you just put it there? Well, I could tell you that that is probably not the place you want to have another storage facility because you already have storage facilities both on the northwest and the northeast quadrants of that activity center. And I could tell you, based upon the asking price of the commercial portion of that project, nobody can afford to build any type of storage facility, let alone just 41 car condos on that parcel. So I don't think that there's the reality that there will be another self-storage facility on that activity center portion of the property. And I've already had some conversations -- and Margaret and I are working on a potential amendment to that PUD that will clearly take self-storage off the table. So that site is really not available for self-storage. So that was one of Mr. Bosi's concerns that we talked about is there -- is there already availability in that area. And then another concern he had was, "Well, Rich, if you do this as commercial, now you can trigger the Live Local Act" and, you know, that's 25 units an acre. And I believe, because the way the Live Local Act is written, we could put a provision in our PUD that prohibits our -- and the subdistrict that says, "You can't use this commercial approval as a springboard to Live Local." And I think that that would be enforceable because PUDs basically are contracts between the government and the property owner. And I'm pretty sure if I were to try to do something as foolish as use that as a basis, the neighbors would sue, the county would sue, and I'm pretty sure it would be very difficult for me to convince a judge to allow my client to build something that they agreed they would never build and say, "You can't hold me accountable for a condition I put in a PUD." I just don't think that could ever happen. So I think we can address Mr. Bosi's legitimate concern by putting a condition in the PUD and in the subdistrict that it can't be used as a basis to develop this under the Live Local Act, because the last thing you want us to do is -- well, anyway. I think when we had our concerns -- or comments from the neighbors, they wanted to make sure we wouldn't put an intensive use on that property, which I think seven units per acre or 16 units per acre the neighbors would consider to be an intensive use, and both of those are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So we are hopefully addressing the neighbors' concerns with our proposed project. I just wanted to point out that it is not atypical for car condos, which are very different than the self-storage buildings that are being built that are usually three or four stories tall. They're very different from those. And here's an exhibit that shows you so far there are eight car condos July 17, 2025 Page 71 of 82 approved in Collier County, and the one that has the circle on it, which is Car Condo No. 5, that's the only one that is actually in an activity center. All of the others are basically in the regular urban area near residential. They're low traffic generators. They're -- in our particular case -- I'm going to go quickly to the architecture, assuming I don't break the system. Keep going. That's just the architecture. It doesn't show the landscaping that will be around it. But these are -- these are -- these are not flat roofs. These are very residential-looking buildings, and with the buffers. You see we have enhanced buffers around all four sides of this project. Basically, in three to five years, when -- we're enhancing the plantings -- the original planting, but when they grow in, you're basically not even going to see -- you know, you're not going to see anything, or you'll see the tops of the roofs when we get done with this. We have -- staff had a couple comments that said, "If you approve this, Commissioners, we would want these following stipulations." We've looked at those, and we can generally agree with all the stipulations that the staff had, but we wanted to make a slight modification. I think when staff said they didn't want buildings visible from a road, I think they meant the doors fronting the roads. So what we've said is we can't have -- we can only have doors parallel to Santa Barbara and Polly, but we could have doors -- and I'll show you why. We can have some doors fronting Everett, but that's where we have the wider buffer with our preserve. And the way the site plan lays out -- or the master plan lays out, I'm sorry. I'm sorry it's taking so long to flip -- you can see how the buildings are laid out where you have -- these are parallel to Santa Barbara. Nothing -- nothing faces Polly at all. And Everett is where we would be requesting to have four doors, essentially. This is the area that has our preserve, and that's approximately 90 foot in width. So you see the preserve. So all we're asking for in that language is that we be allowed to have four doors fronting Everett, but that's where we have our -- we have an enhanced buffer, and we have our preserve. And then they asked for -- as far as no buildings longer than 100 feet, we're good on every building except that one, and that one's 131 feet. We've asked for that one building to be 135 feet. All the other buildings we can agree will be less than 100 feet in width, and that's just the one area -- because of the way the preserve and the stormwater management lays out, that's the only building that would exceed 100 feet in length. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, can you go back to the other drawing? MR. YOVANOVICH: That one? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You said the doors would be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Parallel. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- parallel. But the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean perpendicular. I meant to say perpendicular. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They're actually perpendicular. MR. YOVANOVICH: I meant to say perpendicular. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The garage is parallel, but the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- the doors perpendicular. MR. YOVANOVICH: Perpendicular. Thank you for the correction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It meets the requirement. MR. YOVANOVICH: I struggled with geometry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, geometry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Directions and geometry were two of my weakest -- if geometry would have gone six more weeks, I might still be in high school. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Good thing for GPS for you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Sometimes that doesn't help. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the garages on the second row do actually face -- July 17, 2025 Page 72 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I talked to Mr. Bosi about that. The concern really wasn't those, because these are actually -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: They're blocked, right. It was really the buildings closest to the streets that I think -- and he can talk for himself. But I think I'm accurately reflecting the conversations he had about what did they mean by visible. I think he meant fronting. Perpendicular was okay because of our enhanced buffers. But it wasn't the second row that was the issue. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can you go to your stipulation again? Because the other -- I was just looking. The -- but these are not meant to be occupied to live -- lived in. That prohibition is still in, like all the other ones that we've -- MR. YOVANOVICH: For those of you who were around for the Lutgert approval that created the conflict for Ms. McLeod, we took the same language as to what can be in there. No overnights. You could store cars. You could store your RV. You can store your boat. You can store your wine. Things like -- it's the typical nice garage just like all the others. And as you all know, the market for these is -- there's a lot of demand. And the prices and the rents for these is not insignificant. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the -- as is others, we limited if there's any minor maintenance done -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything's indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- the hours. Everything's indoors. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nothing outdoors. Everything's indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then to include any storage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything is indoors -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Everything is indoors. MR. YOVANOVICH: So these are -- so we took the language for No. 3, that's the language that's in the PUD, and that's what was approved in other recent car condos, and we modified -- we thought No. 2 didn't really apply anymore based upon the modifications we made to No. 1. And then we're fine with the "no buildings can exceed 100 feet" except for the one I showed you. And we're fine with the conceptual architectural renderings becoming exhibits to the PUD. And I think we probably -- could probably put the conceptual site plan also in there. So obviously, it's conceptual with some modifications, but we'll put all those as exhibits. So hopefully that addresses all the concerns that were raised. And that's, in a nutshell, what we're requesting, and we hope you'll recommend approval of both the subdistrict as well as the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And if this didn't go in -- now, you said you would put into the subdistrict a prohibition for -- to prevent any type of Live Local. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It could be challenged, but we'll put it in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, but the only person who could challenge it would be me, and -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I really think it would be really difficult for me to convince a judge to ignore what I promised I would do. I could be wrong, but it's, you know... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Your Honor, I really didn't mean what I said. MR. YOVANOVICH: I said it but my fingers were crossed, you know... COMMISSIONER SHEA: What does Michelle think about that -- Heidi. What does Heidi think about that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: What's that? July 17, 2025 Page 73 of 82 COMMISSIONER SHEA: About the legality of putting that comment, that -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For Live Local? COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- that says Live Local won't be applied for that commercial? Will that override any state regulations? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Probably not, but you could put a restriction that it won't be used for residential uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to do whatever -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It would have to be a recorded restriction. We did that for one off of Randall Boulevard that indicated that there wouldn't be any residential use as a restrictive covenant in favor of Collier County. Now, I think that's, like, the best thing you can do. Whether or not we'd be overrided in the future, I can't say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only way this would become even a thought for Live Local is if the developer abandoned it and said, "You know, I'm not going to do it" and walks away, and then now it's a commercial subdistrict. But it's not going to become Live Local if there was -- if there's cars on it. MR. YOVANOVICH: If we wanted to do affordable housing on this site, we would be doing affordable housing on this site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'd do affordable housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be so much simpler for me to come in and ask for 16 units per acre than go through this masquerade of somehow trying to become a Live Local project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I know I've talked to you about it, but I would have to -- I received nothing from anybody on Polly Avenue, and they've been vocal in the past. And I mean, this is far less obtrusive than if it was a 16-units-an-acre type of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Just so -- you know, you could do 22 residences if I wanted to just use the infill provisions of seven units per acre, or I could do 59 units if I wanted to do affordable housing. So I think this is -- there's no question -- and I think staff -- if you read both staff reports, they said the project's compatible. It fits in the neighborhood. It really was just a concern about could it go in the activity center to the north. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My only concern is -- and I chatted with you about it -- is here's a subdistrict right in the middle of what is essentially a residential area. But it's -- what it could be would be, I think, a little bit more obtrusive than this would -- this is a pretty benign impact from the standpoint of the people who live in that area. So I don't know. I didn't receive any objections. But before we -- any other commissioners have any questions? I have to see if -- are there any public speakers? MR. SABO: We have one registered public speaker, Linda Flores. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Ms. Flores. MS. FLORES: Good afternoon. My name is Linda Flores. I'm a resident on Polly Avenue. When there was a NIM meeting, I did not own the property. I had just moved in, so I didn't have an opportunity to address any of the concerns with any of the residents in the area. So I do not have any fancy overheads, so it's just my personal comments on this. So looking at what you're asking to do, it's to create a whole 'nother subdistrict, correct, for that property? I live two parcels east of where the ingress and egress is going to be on Polly Avenue. So to me, that is a concern because the preserve is being maintained on the south side of the property on Everett, correct? So all the trees -- and most will be removed except for whatever landscaping is going to be for the project. I'm sorry. I should be addressing you, not the attorney. So I -- you just said, you know, is it a conflict with the residents or the local folks? And for me, yes, it is. I bought the property with a wonderful agricultural zoning which was great because some wildlife and birds and all the things that -- even the call of a rooster who lives next July 17, 2025 Page 74 of 82 door, but that's part of farm life, right? So because of -- that is why we bought the property and thought we lived in an area where it would be maintained mostly as acreage. Of course, we know the growth. It's inevitable. We've got the Marlowe. You've got Valencia Sky. You've got the new Santa Barbara place. It's inevitable to have that. However, does this project really fit, as you just mentioned, on that corner? Is that really the right place to have a car storage facility? And some concerns I have about if it does get done is there going to be allowed, which many other of these projects are, where there are events in those areas, where there's outside music and other things that go on, fundraisers? I attended one once, but it was also in a commercial area off of Davis, which there were no surrounding residences, so it didn't really affect them as much. So those are the things I'm concerned about. I'm also concerned about the sewer and water. How is that going to be maintained? Is that going to be hooked up directly? Is that going to force those of us who are on well to go ahead and start now to have to hook up to sewer even though we chose to move to an area where we do have well? That's the other one of my concerns. And also, is it a possibility to move the ingress/egress to Santa Barbara? Why does it have to be on Polly? Sunset Road was never built, I believe, to accommodate what's being built around that right now. What's -- Valencia Sky is a thousand doors, I think. I think that's how many there are. So it's a very big project, as long as Marlowe, as well -- who's only a 35 percent capacity once all those cars are in there that also creates -- and people come down Sunset, come down Polly, and because there's no left access, you have to go out. Everything's a U-turn to get south on -- to get towards Rattlesnake. So there is -- even though -- no, there's not going to be as much traffic as if we did have a multifamily situation. There are a lot more cars in or out. But, you know, some days someone would want to take their very expensive Maserati and run down that dead-end block, and they're a little loud. And who knows what time of day that would be. So those are the concerns, personally, I have. Some of the other folks in the area left earlier and did not stay till this late hour to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you do understand that the subject site could be developed into a high-density apartment complex? MS. FLORES: I do. I do know that. And I understand this may be a less obtrusive project than those would be. But I just wanted to address the concerns about the in and out. Is that something that can be discussed, or is that the only option that would be on Polly? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would have to turn to staff. But the preference is it come off of Polly because, again, it's a six-lane highway, I think, on that -- in that area. MR. YOVANOVICH: Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Santa Barbara. MS. FLORES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it would be -- it's a controlled access, and -- meaning they try and restrict entrances and exits onto -- onto Santa Barbara. MS. FLORES: It's already a busy road. They're all busy roads. It's just happening everywhere. So the setbacks are 25 feet; is that correct? Only 10 actually where the egress is. Is that -- is that correct? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I turn to the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking -- MS. FLORES: The setbacks on east, west, north, and south of the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, when you look at the master plan -- if you'll get me the exact setbacks, please. But when you look at -- I'm going to -- I'm flipping -- can I -- MS. FLORES: I think it's 25 feet; that's what this is. July 17, 2025 Page 75 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I know. I wanted -- I had -- I pulled this exhibit up hoping it would address some of your comments, but... MS. FLORES: Okay, sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's the setback? The building setback is 25 feet. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm going to ask him to address your concerns. MS. FLORES: I just -- one other concern. I want to know what the overall height is going to be, and if there's facade windows and what lighting is there going to be; lighting, whether it be on the building or there's going to be poles, or what does that look like? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The lighting is prohibited under code from spilling off the site. So the lighting is going to be the lighting we need to meet your minimum code requirements, but we're -- we have to shield it so we cannot spill off site. She's correct, the setbacks are 25 feet along the perimeters, but the reality is, both on the east and the south sides, they're going to be further back than 25 feet because that's where we have water management and preserve areas. Sorry. I'm a little whateverred in my -- But -- and then -- so that's the answer to your question. That's where we have our enhanced buffers, enhanced landscaping. It's the -- in those particular cases, it's the back of the building so you're not going to see any of the doors or any of the access to any of these buildings along Polly where you live. With regard to the access, there's already a turn lane leading to Polly. So there must have been some forethought that the parcels along Santa Barbara were going to have a little bit more of an intensive use. If you look at the Onyx project, that's used the infill provisions. That's five and a half units per acre. And then if you go to -- and that has access off of Atkins in that case, and then when you go to the Marlowe, which is this project right here that's on both sides of the road, it also has no direct access to Santa Barbara. So all of the projects are accessing off of the side roads, and they're functioning -- they're functioning fine. And I -- and I guarantee you that the nine p.m. peak-hour trips for this project is far less traffic than would be generated by any of the residential alternatives. And those residential alternatives would also have access off Polly and would not have direct access off of Santa Barbara. MS. FLORES: And so just to confirm that the overall height of the highest building at the peak is what? MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-five feet, right? It's 35 feet. MS. FLORES: Thirty-five. It's not going to 39? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 35, which I believe is consistent with the neighborhoods. Yeah, yeah. Sorry I'm froggy. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other public speakers? MR. SABO: No other public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Close the public hearing. Open for discussion. Well, staff first. Thank you. I didn't ask staff before the public hearing, but staff. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, again, Planning and Zoning -- Mike Bosi, again. As discussed with -- or amongst the conversation, staff has a recommendation of denial. The concerns were, as the applicant stated, about the opportunity at Taramondo [sic] being an opportunity within a mile and a quarter as well as the concern for this being now eligible for Live Local. Those were the two concerns. As you saw within the staff report for the PUD, we did recognize the compatibility nature that the low intensity of this use is something that we could support, and we -- we anticipated that there may be a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission, so we did have some July 17, 2025 Page 76 of 82 additional restrictions that we were suggesting, that if you felt this was appropriate to support the GMP, the PUD should have the conditions. And the modifications that the applicant proposed, I think staff is comfortable with those modifications. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. As proposed? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any comments? Questions? MR. YOVANOVICH: I misspoke. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: The zoned height, tippy top of the roof is 35 feet. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thirty -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-five feet. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: But the actual height, because of the way they measure actual height, it's 39 feet. So when she asked me, "Not 39?" I misspoke. It is still 39 feet to the tippy top peak roof as they measure actual height. But as you measure zoned height, it's 35 feet. It is very confusing the way the county does the measurement. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know zoned height is from the BFE -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- base flood elevation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. We have the two petitions, and the other companion, which I failed to identify, PL20240001081, which is the PUDZ. So the first is the Small-Scale Comp Plan amendment and the accompanying PUD. Any comments? Concerns? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we going to add what Heidi suggested is that in the PUD, that we record a deed restriction to the benefit of the county that prohibits residential use on the property? I just want to make sure before you take a vote on any of this, that -- we're willing to do it. I just want to make sure it doesn't get lost in the motion because that was another assurance that we couldn't use Live Local; that we would put both -- we would say in the subdistrict we can't use it as Live Local, and in the PUD we would have the additional commitment that we would record a deed restriction. And I'll work with Heidi in the interim, since she's already done one somewhere else. I just want to make sure that makes it into the motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the other question I have, then, is water/sewer. This will be on county water/sewer. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the other one I wanted to answer. Water/sewer is off Santa Barbara, so she does not have to worry about -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: She would not be forced -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- tapping into water and sewer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you will be on water/sewer. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be on water -- central water and sewer, and we're get that from Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So technically no impact on well? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, it has absolutely no impact on her. But she was concerned about that. I wanted to make sure I didn't forget to address that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Open for discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No discussion, do I hear any -- a motion? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll second. July 17, 2025 Page 77 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I hear a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: With the condition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With the -- subject to the conditions as stated. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, as long as the conditions are in there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's interesting these projects, though. I -- and I didn't bring it up during the hearing, but I'll talk about it now. I mean, during season, most of these high-end cars are sitting over on Gulf Shore Drive at their -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Third home. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- their real homes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, as you know, with the rush of hurricanes we've had -- and I didn't want to get into that -- I would have -- is it's difficult to get insurance on the vehicle if you're living west of U.S. 41 unless your garage is at the minimum flood, and that's -- that's not the real world. So that's why there's a nice market for this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***All right. We have one last item. And this is PL20240003946, 3001 Bailey Avenue -- Lane. It's a rezoning. It's a lot split, basically, to -- a single-family to an RSF-3. And with that, I'm going to step out a minute and go to the restroom, so -- I'll hear from in there. MR. BUTLER: For the record, am I getting sworn in first of all? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Anybody wishing to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Disclosures. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, visited the site, met with staff. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Of course you did. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. MR. BUTLER: My name is Gary Butler with Butler Engineering. I'm representing Bailey Lane Estates, LLC. It's a small two-and-a-half-acre piece. It's located on Bailey Lane. Bailey Lane located in between -- the whole neighborhood -- not just us, but the whole Bailey Lane neighborhood, it's a dead-end street in between Hawksridge and Poinciana Village. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can you speak into your mic, please. MR. BUTLER: Oh, I'm sorry. So it's a really old road. It's just been developed over the years, basically. I think it might have been a haul for the golf course to the west. July 17, 2025 Page 78 of 82 But this is one of the remaining two-and-a-half-acre tracts that was originally zoned Estates. It's currently zoned Estates. The parcel that surrounds it, Mandalay Place, is seven and a half acres and, basically, it was the other three quarters of these two Estates lots. I did the zoning and I did the engineering, full disclosure, on Bailey Lane Estates -- I mean, on Mandalay Place. In fact, I tried to talk the guy in this parcel into letting me rezone it even if he wasn't going to sell it to my client because then it would be rezoned and he wouldn't have to do anything. And he refused. But now it's back, and my client is going to build three houses. You could get 12 units per acre on it -- 12 units total on it at five units per acre, the base density. But my client only wants to build three houses, so they're going to be 110-foot-wide lots all fronting on Bailey Lane. What you could do right now with Estates is you could have a house and a guesthouse, and you could have chickens. I mean, there's a whole bunch of reasons why it shouldn't be in Estates anymore if it's in a neighborhood. My client will not be able to build guesthouses and, obviously, he won't be able to have chickens. It's a relatively simple project. We're trying to do it as a minor plat. I think we're on the right course with that one. We've talked to the neighbors to the immediate east that back up to this project, and they asked for a bigger buffer, so we agreed to do a 15-foot Type B buffer, which normally it has to be a 10-foot, Type A. I have a picture of the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And for the record, while you're doing that, I have -- my disclosures was staff material only. So I just had to put that on the record. MR. BUTLER: Okay. I just rolled this over, and it seems to have -- (Commissioner Petscher left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the record, you're departing. Mike is departing. Chairman [sic] Petscher is departing, and so we're back -- we still have a quorum of four and one commissioner still on the phone who can ask questions but -- can vote, but in order to have a quorum, we still have four here. So you can proceed. MR. BUTLER: I understand. That's really all I had unless you have any questions. The client -- the guy building the house is the developer. His name is -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. My only comment -- my only comment -- and I made a comment to the staff. You agreed to put a buffer in, which is great, but you're buffering residential against residential. MR. BUTLER: There's still a buffer requirement typically when you have that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. There is a typical requirement, but you're doing -- I would technically say what you've agreed to is -- MR. BUTLER: Over and above. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- over and above, so... MR. BUTLER: And they're RSF-5. We're RSF-3, but we're only really building a little more than one unit per acre. Other questions? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With that, any public speakers? MR. BUTLER: They were a neighborhood meeting. They were several, but they didn't come to this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff? MR. SABO: No public -- there are no public speakers. MR. BOSI: Staff is recommending approval as indicated by the -- they're leaving a lot of density on the table. The RSF-3, the three lots out of the 2.56-acre, we think it's compatible. With the enhancements to the landscape buffer, it's even more compatible. There's no -- there's no reservations about supporting this from staff's perspective. July 17, 2025 Page 79 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Help me understand. But this -- because it's an Estate, you could not have done a lot split. Because you can do a lot split up to three lots. MR. BUTLER: It was previously split. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, it was previously split. MR. BUTLER: North and south. And once you do that, you have to plat to get two lots. So you don't get to get three lots, typically. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BUTLER: You can do three lots as a minor plat, but you still have to plat it. You can't just do a simple lot split. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. Okay. MR. BUTLER: All right. It's a unique neighborhood, I will say that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll just make a comment that it looks very fitting for that neighborhood, and it looks like a great project. So I'm in support. MR. BUTLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So close the public hearing. Any comments from fellow commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Seeing none -- Chuck, any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Except for a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Motion to approve from Commissioner Schumacher. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. MR. BUTLER: Thank, guys. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sorry we kept you here all day. MR. BUTLER: No problem at all. You should keep the smallest projects till the end, because if you had Costco at the end, you'd have a lot of angry people. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We were going to propose that the Costco go on your site, but -- MR. BUTLER: My blood pressure went up watching them. Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Any -- let's see. I just want to make sure we covered everything. Any old business? MR. BOSI: None from staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And regarding the continuance, we will be able to fit it in September. MR. BOSI: Yes. And I've already -- the first meeting in September, I believe, is September 4th. That meeting -- that meeting we have to end at 3 o'clock. So it won't be the -- it won't be the 4th we're putting it on. It will be the 18th that we're going to put this on. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, you are? MR. BOSI: Yeah. I mean, the Board of County Commissioners has this room reserved at 5:05 for their budget hearings on the 4th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many -- I don't think it will be that long. I mean, we've July 17, 2025 Page 80 of 82 heard most everything on -- MR. BOSI: There are already four items on the 4th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. BOSI: That's why I let you know that it's going to be on the 18th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Four items already. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Who can be here on the 18th? Because I can't. I'm in Jersey. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm here on the 18th. What do we look like on the 18th? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I am -- go ahead, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm sorry. I'll be there on the 18th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are you talking about the 17th? No, you're talking about August. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 18th, September. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I will be Zooming in. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. As long as we have members to vote. You're not going to be here, and we don't know about Mike. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll be on the 4th and 18th here. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: All right. Chuck, do you plan to be in person? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah, I'll be in person. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah, that gives you four. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: What items do we have on the 4th, then? I looked at Ray's report. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And which one is the night meeting? Don't we have a night meeting? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's being -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's been rescheduled. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's being rescheduled because the room is -- they're under -- they're under going to -- they're going to undergo, I think, AV improvements in this room. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: That's for -- tentatively scheduled for the 24th of September. It's a Wednesday at 5:05 p.m., five zero five. Correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: (Indicating thumbs up.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: What day is that? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: 24th, Wednesday, the 24th. At 17:05. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's probably the one that I can't -- MR. BELLOWS: Those are for the LDC requirements, and then it's -- they require a night meeting. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Do you have to have, like, a supermajority or anything like that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I didn't -- I don't have that on my calendar. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I thought we didn't have a date. MR. BELLOWS: That's not quasi-judicial. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It didn't work. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the Land Development Codes? Well, it's just a majority of vote for the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's tentative. It's only a soft hold for the 24th. Uh-oh. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So just while they're conferring over there, on the 22nd, we have -- we have four items: Everglades Equipment Group, Radio Road Commercial Infill, the Retreat PUD, Horse Rails Village. Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which month are you on? July 17, 2025 Page 81 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm on the wrong one. I was reading the wrong one. Those are the HEX. August 21st, Magnolia PUD, Davis, Brookside MPUD, and Parosia Club, Parasio Club? Whatever that is. Two different -- so that's it on the -- on the -- that's August 21st, and then we would meet again on the -- I don't have anything. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: September 4th. MR. BOSI: September 4th there's Horse Trail SRA, there's LDC amendment, Radio Road GMP amendment, and PUD -- also a PUD amendment for the Retreat. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I see it, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But there's no 5 p.m. We canceled that. We're only meeting at 9. MR. BOSI: There's no 5 p.m. meeting on the 4th of September. An email was sent out from Angela Galliano of our office, zoning office, to see if the Board was available for a night meeting on September 24th. We've gotten a quorum confirmation on that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Again, I have no problem if we wanted to hear that on the 4th, but if you want to wait -- if the petitioner has agreed. MR. BOSI: If the petitioner gives us the information, we could get this -- get the staff report together, we'll go on the 4th if it does -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't think the public's going to -- they may come back in again and raise all the same issues, but we've heard it. The only issue here is the market study. MR. BOSI: Market study. So based upon the timing of the submittal of their market study, when this gets in, if we can -- if we have enough time to get the staff report in, the package together for the Planning Commission, we will schedule it on the 4th. If not, it will be to the 18th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because my -- the whole issue is, I mean, we -- talking to the commissioners -- one commissioner in particular, we were looking at October for this to go to the Board of County Commissioners, correct, the Costco? MR. BOSI: We were looking at October as a possible date. Even if the 18th, the October can still be the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, it could still be -- MR. BOSI: October, it still could be satisfied. It won't kick us out from being able to get it to the second meeting, because the second meeting in October, I believe, for the Board of County Commissioners is the 28th of October. Yes, 28th of October. So that still -- we're still 40-some days away, so that's plenty of time for us to get that item to the second meeting in October and still make the commissioners’ expectations. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Is there any requirement for a reposting or advertising or signage modification -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- for the marketing study? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. BOSI: We'll readvertise that. It's much easier now that we do it on the Clerk's website -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- is where we -- and it's so much easier. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Good for you. MR. BOSI: It's less costly to the applicant. It's only $50 compared to $1,000. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So let me just make sure I got it right here. On the 24th of September, we're going to have the 5 p.m. meeting? MR. BOSI: That's what -- we sent out an email, and we've identified a quorum, and we've got a night meeting for that, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. July 17, 2025 Page 82 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I somehow missed that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Me, too. Well, no. I answered the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I answered it, but I didn't know we got affirmation that it was -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: We just got it. I think he just gave it to us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, okay. MR. BOSI: I don't think we sent out the email -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we just got it, then. MR. BOSI: Let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't get -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No meeting on August 7th. MR. BOSI: August 7th, this is -- that's the last week that this room will be being tested about the technology improvements that are being upgraded. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And with no taxes on overtime now, so I won't get hit for overtime pay? MR. BOSI: You will not be -- you will not be assessed overtime pay upon your lucrative salaries as a planning commissioner. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. And that concludes today's meeting. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION __________________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ___________ or as corrected ___________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.