Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You, yes it is, but all the words are lies, but together we can make them all come true. Won't you take heed to what I say, and let's start right. And make it a beautiful day, yes. Make it a beautiful day. And make it a beautiful day. Am I strong enough to see it? Am I strong enough to see it through? Go crazy is what I feel.

Chair, you have a live mic.

I've always wanted to do that. Good morning and welcome to the June 4th Collier County Planning Commission meeting I'm Paul Shea I am the secretary but I was told by our attorney that we have to have a vote of a motion and a vote to elect who should run the meeting vice chair and chair are automatic but after that we have to take a vote so does anybody want to run the meeting I nominate Joe. Yes, for a temporary chair.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Yes, so he'll serve as temporary chair to preside over this meeting.

Okay. Is Joe on the phone?

Not yet. Could you let us know when he joins? So when he is ready to join, you'll just need to make a finding of an extraordinary circumstance to warrant him participating remotely and just do a motion for approval.

Can we do that now in anticipation so we don't interrupt the meeting?

Why don't you wait until he does? In case he doesn't. In case he doesn't, yep. Okay.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Mr. Secretary, please take the role. Commissioner Schmidt. Not yet. Commissioner Schumacher is not here. Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparazza.

Here.

Commissioner McLeod. Here. Commissioner Petzer.

Here.

Commissioner Luccarelli. Ms. Lockhart, we have a quorum here and we may pick up Chairman Schmidt shortly. Do we have any addenda to the agenda?

No addenda to the agenda, Mike Bosie, Planning Director.

So let's just confirm the next few meetings. Is the meeting on the 18th still canceled?

The meeting on the 18th is canceled.

18th of June is canceled.

We had talked about July having the double meeting is that still possible July 2nd right now we have no petitions but we haven't canceled the meeting based upon if we needed to continue one of the items from today to the second we want to leave that open as an option but if at the conclusion of today's meeting if nothing is continued to the second from today's meeting then we will be sending out an announcement in canceling the July 2nd meeting

How does everybody look for July 2nd? It's kind of a hectic weekend, but coming up behind. OK, so we don't have anybody that's not going to be here. OK, so we'll wait to hear from you.

yes in on the the 16th of July with the second meeting there's five LDC amendments two are that can be heard during your daytime hearing and then three the majority of it will be have to be heard after 505 because you're adding land uses that meeting will start at 4 o'clock and we'll send out an announcement to the Planning Commission the first meeting is not till 4? the first meeting is not till four not two like we originally thought no not two just just uh at four because we have two ldc amendments that are pretty straightforward i don't think they're going to take a lot of time to get through um but the the majority of the the bulk of that meeting starts at 505 because we'll have three petitions that need that so how's everybody's schedule look for the 16th are we going to have any trouble with the quorum i'll be here i'll be here

Okay, so it looks like your dates should work. I don't think we need to go any further than that. We have the set of meeting minutes from the May 7th meeting. We've had a chance to read it. Are there any questions, additions, deletions, or motions to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second the motion.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. BCC reports, any recaps?

Yes. Good morning, commissioners. On May 26, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Copperstone Estates PUD, RPUD, and that was approved on their summary agenda. That's it? That's it.

Chairman's report? I have none. having completed the routine business we'll move into the petitions the first petition is is uh first and second our companion petitions uh we'll listen to both of them together and then we can decide whether we need to vote separately or together at the end of the presentations 9A, which is PL20250008935, the mini-triangle mixed-use subdistrict growth management plan amendment. And 9B, PL200250008076, mini-triangle NPUD, PUD amendment. Turn it over to the, oh. Yep. All those planning to speak today, stand and be sworn in. Just for these two.

Disclosures from the Planning Commission.

I think I forgot that Redundancy No I need help Disclosures Staff materials only Staff materials only Staff materials and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovitch Staff materials and conversation with Mr. Yovanovitch Visited the site reviewed the staff materials and spoke with Mr. Yovanovitch Okay, so we've done through the formalities, we'll turn it over to Mr. Yovanovitch.

thank you mr chairman uh rich yovanovitch on behalf of the petitioner uh the applicant is 2001 tte llc and jerry starkey and fred poseshkin are here representing that entity bob mulhair and jeremy chastain are the two planners on this project and mr trebilcock is our transportation consultant on this project this is a relatively minor and simple request to increase the mini triangle mixed-use sub-district within your future future land use element of the comprehensive plan we would be adding 1.35 acres which is the u-haul site along the East Tammany Trail to the existing sub-district to increase it from 5.35 acres to 6.7 acres. We would be incorporating the 16 units that the current comprehensive plan designation allows. this existing sub-district and increasing the overall maximum number of dwelling units from 491 dwelling units 507 dwelling units that's the change to the growth management plan and there is a companion PUD petition that would also add the 1.35 acres add the 16 units to the overall project this is the location of the u-haul site i'll show you a picture in a second in case you don't remember what it looks like as you will recall this mini triangle sub-district was established many years ago and it was to be the catalyst for the redevelopment of that this portion of kire county which included the East Ham-Ammy Trail and Davis Boulevard. It took a while but it's finally moving along and you can see as you drive past the project that you have a rental community and a for sale community already under construction. The rental community is up and running. You recently heard the Halcyon petition which is in this area right here which was a condominium and marina project and you've got the JW Marriott also in this area so this project has done what it was intended to do which would be the catalyst of starting the redevelopment of this area This is the U-Haul site that will be incorporated into this project and further beautify this portion of Collier County. As I already mentioned, there's one other change, or I haven't mentioned it, but there is one other change to the PUD that we're making. In the old days, the floor area ratio associated with senior housing was a 0.45. This PUD referenced the 0.45. Recently the land development code was changed to increase the floor area ratio for senior housing to a point six So we are basically eliminating the reference to the point four or five and relying upon the floor area ratio associated with The land development code into the project and this is the resulting changes to the PUD based upon what we're proposing to do you can see a The FAR goes away and it's just a reference of 150 maximum assisted living units and we're increasing the maximum residential density to the 507 units there are no changes to the maximum number of hotel units that can result from this project and no changes to the maximum commercial square footage and no changes to the minimums that are required as part of this proposed project this is a mixed use project so there are safeguards to make sure that it'll be developed as mixed uses because we have the minimum commercial that's required as part of of the project um we retained the existing trip cap in the pud document the reason we kept the original trip cap is because this project allows for you know a maximum of 507 residential units a maximum of 228 hotel rooms and a maximum of 130 000 square feet all of that can't fit on the site so when the original tis was done there were certain development parameters assumed which resulted in the trip cap of 628 in the old days we were required to actually analyze the maximums of every one of the maximum uses so we would have been required to analyze 507 units we would have been required to analyze 228 hotel rooms and we would have been required to analyze 130 000 square feet of commercial even though that could not fit on the site So we ended up with this artificial examination of the traffic impacts on the road system that was never going to really happen. So what we've been required to do when we do these types of projects is make an assumption of a mix and match, if you will, the Chinese menu approach of the uses, come up with a trip cap, and that's what we're capped at. But you still have the maximums, but you can never exceed that trip cap. Since we're making a change to the PUD, To add the number of units, we're keeping the trip cap the same. So our traffic impacts will remain the same that was originally analyzed, even though we're adding these 16 units. And in fact, if we develop based upon the current anticipated scenario, there will be less traffic than the 628. But since we don't know what the market's going to be, we kept the 628 trip cap that was originally analyzed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. I'm going to turn it over to Bob to briefly take you through the master plan and revisions to the project show you some conceptual drawings of the buildings that will occur as a result or the building that will occur as a result of of this change and then we're all here to answer any questions you may have regarding this these two petitions thank you for the record Bob Mulhair with Bowman

So the PUD master plan, I'll get to it in just a second, it's been updated to include Lot 4 and to add the notations that are required on a master plan to reflect the deviations that may relate to Lot 4. We didn't add any new deviations. They were in the PUD already. We also removed a number of conceptual landscape and architectural design exhibits that were really superfluous. Boy, that's a tough one. And we really didn't need those. They're no longer necessary, so we've removed those.

So this is the master plan.

And lot 4 is right here, and that's the U-Haul site. And as I mentioned, you know, there are various numerical delineations of deviations that might apply, for example, to the landscape buffer here along 41 and up here along Davis.

Chair, can I ask a question now while he's on that? Sure. Tom, can you tell us what's already – oh, go back to slide 12.

Sure.

Can you tell us what's already on those sites or what's expected?

Yes. I was going to show you that. Oh, OK. Sorry. I have some exhibits that I think will clarify that. Thank you. Sorry.

Can I interrupt you, Bob? Yeah. I think Joe's on now. Joe, can you hear us?

Yes, thank you. I finally got in. I can hear you. And I would ask that the board allow me to participate remotely if they could vote and accept my participation.

do we have a vote a motion to approve joe to speak virtually this meeting so motion to allow joe to participate virtually for this meeting second all in favor aye aye motion passes so this exhibit here just uh shows you the uh

The text is pretty small, so I added something a little larger for those of us that are visually challenged here. So lots one, two, and three, and then the addition of lot four, which is down here. And the access is right through here. This existing access that you saw in the aerial picture that Rich showed, if you hold that, will be closed. So that's kind of a good thing. That's sort of nonconforming. It's pretty wide, allowing trucks to enter and exit. That's going to be closed.

The access to Lot 4 will be through here.

And there's a system of platted roadways through here. Just a little more specific focus on Lots 3 and 4. And it shows you the outline of the buildings and a lot of where you see proposed buildings. These are conceptual. I don't think any final decisions have been made, but there's some conceptual plans. And I'll show you some renderings in just a minute. Hopefully this will clarify for you what exactly the intent is there. But you can see that there's a building here and parking underneath. And then the same over here. There's a podium and then multi-stories above on both of these. And so this is a gorgeous architects and associates. It's a rendering for lot three, which has a podium and includes approximately three stories or four stories, which includes parking underneath and then behind it additional floors. The existing PUD allows a height of up to 15 floors above FEMA. And that was approved not only by the county, but also by the Naples Airport Authority. The lot four that we're adding, I just want to clarify, we did not ask for any additional height for that lot. And so the LDC, the actual underlying zoning is C4, and it's within the overlay, the CRA overlay. and it's within the mini triangle that Rich referenced. So anything in that mini triangle defined by 41, Davis, and commercial is intended to create a catalyst for future development. As a result, there is a height allowance within the mini triangle of 112 feet for mixed-use projects. So we're not asking for the 15 stories. that is already approved, we're only asking for what's already allowed in that underlying zoning district for a mixed-use project, which is 112 feet, and that's always measured from FEMA or DEP, whichever is the more restrictive.

And this is...

MHK rendering of lot four proposals. So you can see that I didn't count the floors, but one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. It's probably, and there's parking underneath, probably three floors of parking and then 10 or 11 floors above that. And again, this is conceptual because we are restricted to stay under or at 112 based on the height limitation. And the PUD actually has language in it that restricts the height on this lot to 112 from FEMA. So we did have a neighborhood information meeting on April 7th. We only had one member of the public in attendance. There was one member of the public who attended via Zoom. No one spoke or asked any questions. The staff recommendation is for both the comp plan amendment and the PUD amendment is a recommendation for approval. I did want to mention that the amendment to the PUD to strike through the 0.45 FAR floor area ratio and allow the 0.6 to apply still, as Rich said, still contains the limit of 150 ALF units. We also had to amend the sub-district because there was a reference to 0.45 in the sub-district. So both of those were amended. That brings us to questions.

Michelle? Bob, slide 16. Okay, so you have, I think it was seven stories, and then over three stories of parking?

Total of 10. Okay, total of 10.

Total of 10. And then, okay, so parking, but what's on the third floor? Is that parking too, or is that commercial space? Where's the commercial space?

Well the commercial space will be likely on the potentially on the first floor but there may be office or other commercial uses on second or third floor so I imagine that that that's what that is but there's also parking you just don't see it there.

Okay and then just out of curiosity why didn't you go to the maximum allowable in this district? You mean floors? Yeah.

Well I don't know what the height of this is I'm guessing it's pretty close to 112 today folks want a lot of headroom, you know, maybe it's 10 or 11 or 12 foot floor to ceiling, and then you've got a foot or 18 inches for slabs in between each floor. When you add all that up, I'm guessing that it's pretty close to the 112. So even though we're only doing 10 floors, the height is probably pretty close to 112. Anyway, we need to stay within that that limitation. and then is there any talk about the the budget rental car area wasn't there talk about that possibly I don't know okay I mean I think you probably know that you heard a PUD amendment further to the east probably six months ago or seven months ago that amended an older PUD along the East Trail where U-Haul is moving.

Right, right. That was one of my questions. Isn't this where now U-Haul will go out to that petition we heard last year? Yes. Okay, yeah.

Yes. So that's moving, and that presentation at that time was made to the CRA as well as our presentation. So they're aware of all of what's going on.

Just wondering, because that's also in the triangle, right? That budget?

You know, I'm not sure.

yeah it's you access it i believe off of davis because everything in the triangle west of uh commercial is up for grabs during the redevelopment yes well in both sides up for grabs it's all within the cra yeah okay yep thank you any other questions if not we'll hear from staff

Mike Bosie Planning and Zoning Director as the applicant had indicated this has been slated ever since the 2000 designation of the Bayshore area as a community redevelopment area this corner the mini project triangle has been designated as the catalyst project for the Bayshore CRA took a while like I said 2000 when it was created it was 18 years before it was adopted and as it was adopted it was adopted at an intensity that reflected the the special category in terms of how it was viewed from the bayshore cra plans but overall the the growth management plan of the of the cart county meaning that we allowed a density of 91.77 units an acre which is extremely high for for for the county also a height of 168 feet which is extremely high for the county especially a non coastal development Because they were the catalyst to help attract additional capital. And I think the applicant has indicated across the street at Brookside Merida to the south, the Marriott that's going in as well. You're starting to see the Catalyst project have that effect. So the additional 1.35 acres to the Catalyst project within the confines and not even taking the intensity of the height. capping it at 112 and it is 112 along that Davis Boulevard for a mixed-use projects as a matter of right so they are asking for what the LDC already provides for any project that would be available there the other unique twist about this is the intensity that I mentioned 91.77 92 units an acre pretty intense well they're adding 18 additional units to get to the 507 and they're adding the 1.35 acres actually the density for this project goes from 92 to basically 75. so it de-intensifies this project by adding this project and it's not asking for the tame intensity of the 168 but it's it's accepting the 112 cap that's assigned to projects within this by the ldc by as a matter of right for all those reasons staff looks at this and is very supportive of it um we we recognize the uniqueness of this situation but we also recognize the benefit of adding some additional acres lowering that lowering the the overall density which is a overall we think it could be a positive thing for the area for all those reasons staff is uh supporting the project and would have uh answer any questions that you may have regarding are there any deviations that we're talking about No, as the applicant had indicated, there were deviations currently existing in the PUD. They are not asking to add any additional deviations. So like I said, for all of those reasons, staff is recommending approval.

Any questions for staff?

Just one is there any plans for the budget rental car anything that's come up for that or that one's I would have to do a little bit I haven't personally been involved in any in conversations but I'm sure there is market forces that are going to convert that at some point in time this Catalyst project is is going to have effect upon all properties within a not only contiguous to this project but within the spirit within the spirit of influence just because the capital amount the capital that has been invested within the the the the first iteration of the mini triangle with this second with these additions only going to continue that that process of converting and changing that land use scenario and this mini triangle area is one where just to I mean it as you head to the east from the this location you get into a series of zero lot lines develop auto just an eclectic mix of uses and we think at some point in time you're going to see even those areas start to have some land assembly and some some conversion to alternative uses that are currently allowed by the by the plan so staff is confident and this is consistent with the the overall mission of the Bayshore CRA and we think this will only help that individual direction that it wants to go Any other questions for staff do we have any public speakers on these two items Good morning chair we have no speakers

We have no speakers, so I'm gonna open and close the public speaking, and open it up to the board here for discussion. Off the board.

Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner Schmidt. I recommend approval of both the proposed changes, both amendment items. I see no problem with it. They're pretty minor. We didn't do that. So I would recommend approval.

Joe, just for the record, did you have any dialogue or anything you should announce before we get into the discussion any further?

No, I have no disclosures on this item. I did email Mr. Yovanovitch telling him I was going to participate via the web, but no, I've had no prior discussions.

Okay.

Thank you.

With that said, I would like to second Joe's recommendation for approval on both the, well we'll call them out here, PL205008935 and also the PUD on PL20250000, I'm sorry, 8076, the mini triangle.

Is there a second?

I was seconding. You were seconding? I just put in.

I'm falling behind. I'm used to sleeping at these meetings. uh all in favor of the recommendation aye aye aye aye pass unanimously that concludes those two hearings we're going to move into what is on the agenda as 9c and d and their companion items as well we'll give everybody a minute to It's okay, yeah. Okay, now we're gonna move into the, again, the second, the third and fourth, which are nine C and D, which are companion items for the fairways in. They are a continuation from a previous meeting. The first petition is PL20240000329 for the fairways in. The second petition is, big numbers. PL20240000220. And we'll hear those together. We can decide at the end of the presentation whether we want to vote on them separately, but we'll hear the content together. Let's have any disclosures. Ms. Lockhart? Staff materials only.

I live in the neighborhood there. I drive by there all the time. If there's a requirement that I recuse myself from the discussion or vote.

I can't really hear you that well. I'm a speaker, but I think you said that you live in the neighborhood and you're wondering whether you're required to abstain from voting. Yes. Are you or your family members receiving any money from the applicant?

No, no.

um then i don't it's always good to reach out ahead of time in case there are other facts that you know i need to know but it sounds like you do not need to abstain from voting where it doesn't sound like there's a pecuniary benefit to you or your family thank you any other disorders staff materials staff materials for me as well

Staff materials in a conversation with Mr. Davies.

Staff materials only.

Staff materials spoke with Mike Bosey and visited the site.

Would anybody?

I would ask, I need to. Oh, I'm sorry, Joe. Yeah, I did speak to Mr. Davies on this extensively several weeks ago when it was first scheduled. and had a follow-on discussion with Mr. Davies again. I notified him that I was going to participate via the web, and we had a discussion as well about the petition. So for the record, phone conversation with Noel Davies. Thank you.

Okay. Would anyone planning to speak today please rise and be sworn in by the county clerk? Thank you, we'll turn it over to mr. Davies

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning Planning Commissioners. For the record, Noel Davies on behalf of the applicant Seasonal Investments Inc., the owner of Fairways Inn. This is a proposed PUD Rezone and Companion Small Scale Growth Management Plan amendment to permit the expansion of Fairways Inn on four immediately abutting parcels to the north of the existing inn. I have with me today my client representative Steven Mirowitz, Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering as our civil engineer, Kyle Veda with Beck Architectural Group as the project's architect, Charles Thomas is our land planner, Norm Trebillcock is our transportation engineer, and Susan Heffron is our economist. The existing facility has been operating since the 1960s and is one of the last remaining old Florida style motels in the county. It is located at 103 Palm River Boulevard. This is Immokalee Road to the south and this is Palm River Boulevard to the east. the southernmost red box is the existing inn and the box immediately north of that is the proposed expansion parcel the existing inn currently includes 46 rooms and we are proposing to add 30 rooms Everything is in keeping with the neighborhood from an aesthetic and compatibility perspective The height on the expansion would be limited to two stories or 35 feet Which is the same as the existing RSF 3 zoning on the expansion site and the neighboring properties It is also substantially similar to the height of the existing two-story building the contrast between what sits there today and And what we're proposing is a substantial aesthetic improvement. As you can see in these renderings, the architectural style and scale site orientation and development limitations ensure that we are consistent with your code and compatible with our neighbors. The existing site is currently zoned residential tourist RT and the expansion site is currently zoned RSF3. Both sites are designated urban residential on the future land use map. My client acquired the Fairways Inn in 1998 and has operated it as a family business ever since and would plan to continue to do so with the expansion. This is a true legacy project for my client and his family who would be self-funding the renovation and expansion and would continue to operate the Inn in a way that is mindful of its neighbors and fits with the community while staying committed to providing high quality lodging at reasonable rates something that is desperately needed here as we all know in a market dominated by luxury hotels Here is our table of development standards. At staff's request, we included the existing site of the inn into our PUD as tract A and ported over the existing residential tourist development standards. Tract B is the expansion parcel. We are providing 30-foot front yard setbacks on both the eastern and western sides with 10-foot wide Type D landscape buffers. a 15 foot wide side yard setback with a 15 foot wide type b landscape buffer to the north as outlined in the staff reports the proposed expansion will be complementary to the existing use of the inn and will be compatible with the neighboring residential land uses the existing hotel has proven its compatibility over many decades with the surrounding residential neighborhood as a permitted use within the residential tourist zoning district the expanded use will remain compatible with the surrounding area the proposed expansion will be appropriately buffered from neighboring properties the new building is oriented away from the neighborhood and internal to the site and no outdoor sound amplification is proposed as i mentioned the height will also be limited to two stories or 35 feet to be consistent with what exists there today and consistent with the rsf3 zoning district Here is our master concept plan. What's in color is the proposed expansion parcel, which shows a single access point here from Palm River Boulevard. All parking for the expansion parcel will be located on site for tract B. Norm Trabilcock is here to answer any questions regarding transportation. We are limited to a total of 16 new PM peak hour trips. Mr. Trabilcock prepared the required transportation impact statement, which shows only a de minimis traffic impact and is in compliance with the pertinent regulations. There is sufficient roadway capacity for this de minimis impact. His report has been reviewed and approved by county transportation staff. We are not requesting any deviations and our applications have been duly reviewed by the county's professional staff who have found them to be consistent with the land development code and growth management plan and are recommending approval. We did try to meet with a group of the neighbors since we were before you last month. Unfortunately, they refused to meet with us. I was able to have discussions with a couple individuals who wanted to meet separately. We tried again to get a meeting with the larger group, but they were only willing to meet if we withdrew our applications altogether. My client remains open and receptive to meaningful, reasonable dialogue with our neighbors. And with that, my team and I are happy to answer questions. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Speranza. Thank you Mr. Davies for your presentation just want to confirm something that I thought I understood yesterday in our conversation the The current owners of fairways in currently owns those for properties. Yes, sir. So they are wanting to do something different with property that they own. Are they currently leasing or renting out those four homes on a six month, one year, whatever lease basin? Yes. Okay. Uh, obviously they would have to conclude that lease with whatever requirements are in the written agreement with their tenants. After that, they have the property. It would be, quote, vacant. They can do with it as they see fit, as long as it's within county guidelines and everything. But it's their property right now. They own it. Correct. Great. Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr. Davies?

Is there any other alternative plan other than getting, I mean, Palm Drive is kind of a, there's a lot of traffic coming off of Mockley Road there. And the other, the Piper Boulevard side is pretty much unused except for a little bit of parking that's there. Wouldn't that be a better way in and out of it?

As far as the access point to the new expansion, it's just the way the geography sort of sets. The proposed tract is immediately on the north side, and so the only sort of viable access point is from Palm River Boulevard.

I'm looking at the proposed rendering. That's Palm Drive, right? So that's from Palm River Boulevard. Palm River Boulevard, and then Piper, it would be to the left there, right? That's my only concern about in and out. There's only one way in and out. Why not have another way from Piper Boulevard that would...

So the existing inn is south of what you see on this rendering. So there's just a building in the way from Piper.

Okay. I need to amend my disclosures. I forgot to mention I spent some time at the site. Any other questions for Mr. Davies? Hearing none, we'll turn it over to staff.

Thank you.

Mike Bosie Plain Zoning Director as contained within the GMP as well as the PUD staff report the project has been reviewed by all the professional disciplines within the county's review process there are there is recommendations of approval for both of these these proposals this is a unique situation a sense that there is an encroachment into an existing residential neighborhood and that is something of a commercial encroachment into an existing residential neighborhood and staff is generally concerned about that encroachment but there are some very strict limitations towards what staff has an ability to react to that why do I say that what does that mean the hotel property with their 36 individual units you know that are rented out on a daily or weekly basis the four individual single-family homes that sit to the north because of the prohibition that the state has placed upon localities to to have to allow short-term rentals the commercial use of those properties have already been authorized by the state legislator There is nothing that we can do that will stop those individual houses from being rented on a daily, a weekly, monthly, whatever the case may be. Those properties are functionally a commercial unit that's already encroached upon into that neighborhood. But there's no buffering. They're designed as single family houses because that's when they were built. They were occupied by someone who lived there for six, nine months, whatever the case may be, or owned it. There's no buffering, there's no attention to the exterior, there's no attention to how does that affect the residential property that's adjacent to those units. because of that staff feels that the intensity of the hotel and the intensity of those units can bleed over into the residential units staff perspective is if you allow for the conversion of those four units or those four units in those four parcels to be brought into the hotel property the hotel property can attend to the edges with buffering can attend to the edges with the water management and could put the focus of the intensity of the hotel interior to the property pay attention to how the effect this property and how this hotel will affect in is affecting the existing residential neighborhood we understand that this is a situation where the the residents are not are not supportive of this activity it's already happening It's allowed for. The state legislator, when they said that you cannot, localities cannot regulate short term rentals, basically said commercial activity is allowed to encroach upon any residential neighborhood that does not have deed restrictions. that's the reality and that's the reality staff has worked upon so when we looked at this we tried to figure out what was the best way to work with the applicant to be able to have that attention to the edges have the attention to how does this facility in this proposed expansion how can it be best mitigated to minimize the impact to the residential neighborhood I understand at the end of the day there's no answer that's going to satisfy them because they just want to they want to they want those four single-family houses to remain four single-family houses and not be rented out on a daily basis or a weekly basis but that's not the reality that we have to deal with the reality that we are dealing with is that right now those four units are not can be utilized by the hotel as short-term rentals and the effect upon those are not being buffered or being mitigated at all. So it's a very difficult situation that the planning commission has to make an evaluation based upon those concepts and based upon those realities. so I understand that this and when we hear the public it's going to place us in place the Planning Commission in some very tough situations but remember there is at the end of the day the fallback is to continue to do it if this petition was to be denied they'll continue to utilize those residential houses as additions to their hotel without any buffering without any attention to the edges and they're perfectly within their their rights to do so so this is a very unique situation one that that staff recognizes that there is going to be some some individuals that leave here maybe aren't satisfied with it with the process but we think that there is as long as we can pay the closest attention to how we address the edges how we address the impact that there can be some mitigation that can make the the this this project more compatible than what it is currently in terms of its impact on that existing residential properties. And so with that, staff is recommending approval and any questions that you may have.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question if I could, please.

Go ahead, Joe.

Yes, Mike, maybe Mr. Davies can answer this as well. In addition to the four units to the north, the Petitioner also owns the additional houses further north, three additional lots further north. Is that correct? That then will be the lots abutting the new development. The petitioner owns those houses as well as rentals?

That's correct. That's correct, Commissioner Schmidt. Okay, thanks.

How many homes is that?

there's three additional that my client owns that's north of the four that we're including in the pud and they're adjacent to these four correct correct uh that means that a neighbor won't be adjacent to the property that's correct it will be the petitioner who owns the homes adjacent to this property correct that's correct okay thank you thank you

But that also means that there's a potential to expand even further north in the future.

Well, that would have to go through.

No, but that is a potential that he could expand forth. Sure.

So to be clear, that is not a potential that is before you today. We would have to- We would have to go back through this process, apply to rezone, apply for a small-scale growth management plan amendment. That's not the intent. That is not the desire. But what's before you today is the use of just those four lots, which immediately abut, to your point, Mr. Speraza, three additional homes that are to the north of that that are not included in today's applications.

Noel, I understand that you met with the transportation department and there were some commitments that were discussed. Do you have anything to put on the record?

Yes, I do.

And I just spoke with Lorraine Lance and she was going to come up and introduce some transportation commitments that they've agreed upon with the applicant as well.

So Lorraine Lance, Transportation Planning. I have on the visualizer the commitments that we provided to Mr. Davies and he agreed to. So there's two additional commitments in regards to transportation. The first one, just to summarize, but it will be in the record, is regarding the parking. We are aware that there is some public parking, current parking, in the current right-of-way. It's been a pre-existing condition. so if tract a in whole or in part is redeveloped that that parking would then go away so that that public on street parking would go away and then we we reserve the right if there is a safety issue to amend or revise the parking to modify it in the public spaces. And the required spaces for track B have to be located fully on track B. So we are in agreement that this is not redevelopment of track A and that everything on track B has to be self-enclosed on track B.

So the parking spaces in track A that back out into the road in order to come in and out will be eliminated when track A is updated?

That wouldn't have tracked a if track is redeveloped and track the track that the parking spots on I believe it is Palm View drive as well as Palm River Boulevard there's parking on the street on both they would have to be revised.

Lorraine I'm having trouble. Realizing where you're talking about do you can you.

okay I just wanted to get a an aerial of track a so they're just getting it up tracked a is the one further south it's at the corner property and

So this would be tracked a and there's parking off that arrow and the other arrow one is parallel and one is back so the parking area to the south on the canal is not going away, right and

That is right over here.

Yeah.

Those spaces, that is an easement agreement in which they are allowed to park there. Okay.

Because I know Southwest Florida Water Management, they need that space.

I think they have some access to get to the canal for maintenance, but there's a parking agreement in place for them to park there legally.

Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the one you were talking about that's going to be eliminated. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Lorraine.

Go ahead, Joe.

Yeah, Lorraine, just to clarify, the perpendicular parking at track A would be modified. Would they still be allowed, during the development of track A, if they have to remove the perpendicular parking, would they still be allowed some parallel parking along the street? It seems to me that parallel parking would be allowable. through county codes, but I heard you say it would be eliminated. So which is it?

So I believe in this area there is no on-street parking allowed. So that is the current code. Obviously, this hotel was in existence since the 60s where there was parallel parking or on-street parking. So once Tract A is redeveloped, we would then look at it, but potentially we'd eliminate all parking.

They got on confused. All on-street parking. There's some space of it. There's certainly space available now because they're perpendicular parking. And you're saying there's that there's no parking allowed in Palm River Drive, but if that perpendicular parking was converted to a parallel parking, I don't understand how that would, how the county would eliminate that completely. It seems to me there would be sufficient space for parallel parking. You're saying that the county would eliminate, would this allow any parallel parking on that section?

We would have to consider that based off of the parking standards, which is a development review criteria, it's not necessarily transportation criteria. However, in this area, this overlay or this district, there is no on-street parking allowed.

Commissioner Sperazza.

Real quickly Elaine the current parking right now that's perpendicular to Palm River Boulevard that parking is intended for use by guests at the Fairways Inn It's public parking to my knowledge but it is the guests do park there yes I don't want to get ahead of myself but if that parking is eliminated are there Adequate spots within the property of the fairways in for parking if they were to have full If they were have zero vacancies full attendance Okay, so again, that would be a parking deviation or a parking requirement from development review regarding parking size parking location standards I'm talking about the parking in the right-of-way.

It's our it's transportation right-of-way. Correct. So we're saying it should be a eliminated. How that is reviewed, if they have to redevelop and modify their site plans, that's a development.

That's my question. If this is taken away, kind of looks like there's not enough parking inside does that mean that the city and the petitioner will be working together to figure out you have 46 rooms correct sounds like you probably need 46 parking spots not sure but is that something that is being talked about the reason I say that is if you're agreeing to eliminate those and if what do we have there 14 spots or something if eight of them were used for guests I just want to make sure that oops all of a sudden we don't have enough parking for the redevelopment of track A and now there's people parking on the street that's my caution

Mike? Mike Bosey, Plan Zone Director and just let me for the listening public and we're ready now we're talking about a hypothetical situation upon on track day during a re if it's redeveloped because these proctoring spaces are going they're grandfathered in it's only if this parcel a is redeveloped if this parcel a is redeveloped it's rt it's 100 feet of zoning they could put three stories of parking and then put on top of that there there's there's going to be no no shortage of ability to park whatever is going to whatever the concept they want to to to propose there so there's no dis there's there is no real value in terms of trying to figure out what they're going to do eventually if they ever do anything on that redevelopment that's that would be a that that would be a probably a a sdp process because they have currently the rt zoning um what we're saying is is tract a can maintain the grandfather parking if they were to redevelop the site and the parking goes away because everything is being redeveloped that rights that that they're they're entitled to to the existing spaces go away they will have to park adequately whatever is being proposed on site to be able to handle the parking demands what towards what's being proposed but we don't know what that is right

okay when you say redevelop maybe i'm way out of line here but that's if they wanted to tear down the structure do something else not when you say redevelop okay we're going to change the facade we're going to do a little painting swap out windows no correct so more than likely this parking will remain in place for the near future for the near future it is grandfathered in

Thank you now I understand thank you I'm going to follow up on that if I can we're not talking about track day right so why I'm not trying to why would this matter in this decision about this parking spot

It matters to, the neighborhood is concerned about the perpendicular parking pulling back into the roadway. And transportation is concerned about that as well, but it's a condition that's grandfathered in. But it's currently happening now anyways. It's currently happening now, and it has been happening since the 60s. I'm not saying it doesn't create an increased risk if it wasn't there, but it is there. They have a right to maintain what has been in place for close to 64 years.

So the agreement is only if in the future they develop track A, but this decision is only track B. Correct.

michelle yeah well yeah i had the same concern as mike but i think what the the neighbors then may be concerned about is that they're going to 30 more units and so you need parking for that and so that's where yeah but that's only they can only eliminate that if they're going to develop that No, but the residents are concerned about the parking already on track A, and so you're going to have more people utilizing that parking area. No, no. Track B is enclosed.

Track B parking is enclosed on the lot.

Jamie Cook, the development review director. So if this were to be approved for track B to redevelop, They will be doing a site development plan amendment. Our land development code requires that when you do a site development plan amendment, the entire site has to come up to current code. Current code does not allow parking in the right way. So the tract A, the southern portion where the on-street parking currently exists with this request would be allowed to stay until they tear down the buildings and build something else. But for tract B, they will have to put all of that parking somewhere within the tract.

Which is indicated in the conceptual design. It's all interior. Yes. There is no parallel or perpendicular parking on Palm River Boulevard. So it's all contained within B, the northern section.

Okay. Question, Chair? Yes, sir. Is that parking in track A not public parking?

If it's in the right of way technically it is public parking Right so anybody can park there the 30 units Just not a lot of people looking to park in that area that don't already have parking But also you're gonna have people that are gonna want to park near their rooms I was gonna say human nature tends people would like to park as close to their hotel room as possible

So they're going to have to provide all the adequate parking for B on track B. If someone who has a room in track B wants to park on the perpendicular parking spaces, nothing will prevent them from doing that. It's just the tendency mostly is they want to be closer to their room.

Right, yeah, good point. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the board? Okay. How are we doing on time? You want to take a break before we go into public? Okay, public could be a while. We got a lot of people on here. Okay, with that, we're gonna open up the public input session. How many speakers do we have registered?

Okay, we have a total about 13 speakers. We will begin with Jim Capwell.

And who's the second? So if the second speaker could come up to the opposite podium so they're ready to go we can keep things moving. We have a lot of speakers and one thing I will tell you from being on the Commission for a while saying the same thing over and over again tiring if somebody's made your point please don't make everybody sit through the same arguments you have a lot of good arguments so we're looking forward to hearing them Chairman if I may I'd also like to remind the folks in the audience

We are not the final decision. We are advisory only. We're volunteers. So the buck does not stop here. We are helping the public and the commissioners to bring out any details, ideas, topics, discussions that helps them make the final decision. Just wanted to remind you of that. We are advisory only, and as Commissioner said, hearing the same thing five times actually doesn't help you at all. Okay? Thank you.

Name please residents for the my name is Jim cap.

Well, I live at 177 Oakwood Drive, which is in River Oaks HOA Which is a part of the Palm River? Community and I stand here at the request of the River Oaks HOA board we presented a letter to this commission into the commissioners of Collier County in Support of the night interrupt you a minute Yes.

Usually we allocate three minutes. Have you exceeded time?

I will try to get done in three minutes. If not, I will.

Just so everybody knows that it's a three-minute time limit unless somebody outseeds their time. So when she announces the speaker, hopefully you might have put it on your sign-in sheet that you have time seeded from other participants and you need to be present in the room to seed your time. So, excuse me, please proceed.

No problem. Again, I'm here in strong support with the opposition, the people who you should be listening to, in my opinion, most closely, those residents that are going to be affected on Palm View Road and Palm River Boulevard. And I want to open my conversation, though, with the argument that was presented by this gentleman over here that because he's already having Airbnb or short-term rentals on those properties, That should not enter into anyone's thinking of should this or should this not be approved. That is a separate issue that the community supports Airbnb. We're not going after him for that. If you go back to the transcript on the NIM, you'll see the owner even said if this does not go forward, this change, he's just going to continue to do what he's doing now and we can accept that. But this case, I believe, is different than most of the cases that you have to decide when developers come in here and ask for something. This is not we're asking for anything. We're asking to uphold only the property rights of the existing community property owners. They purchased single family resident homes in a single family resident community with the expectation that you would uphold that community to remain as such. And now, without demonstrating a need or a benefit to the community, you're being asked to change that entire complex, okay, for one property owner versus all the property rights of all the other property owners. I spoke about need, 61 to 65% occupancy on hotels in Collier County. okay benefit for the community in their application there is no benefit that's been displayed in the community Quite frankly, I don't know how the review process goes in the community and how it got to you at this point, but there's some serious questions that will be raised by these residents who are lay people who have hired outsiders to review this, help them with this. And I have serious reservations that what was reviewed have this just, you know, approved and sent for your decision. For instance, we talked about transportation. Commissioner, I'm glad you live in the community. You know about the traffic problems existing. No one's complaining about what he has there. I support his hotel, okay? However, to expand on that and then watch on a Friday night non-resident tourists drive down the wrong way of that median strip to get into those parking spaces. Then he's proposing another addition off the same street. How are we going to expect them to follow the law? And it's not his responsibility, but you're allowing him or allowing those people to have the ability to do this, okay? Second thing that I want to say about this, the transportation. This board approved a project in our community. I'm going to call it the Anthrax project, Arthrax project, okay? The report being submitted, this application is dated September 4th.

You're out of time, so could you wrap it up?

You can finish your thought.

Chair, excuse me. He's being seated in tie by Jim, I'm sorry, Michael Galley. So that would be a total of six minutes. Okay.

Continue, please.

Thank you. I'm available to 10.30, but I have to leave. Okay. The transportation report that I saw submitted by the outside consultant is dated September 4, 2024, I believe. This board and the Board of Commissioners approved that other project, the Arthrix project, in which they took 16 units and took it up to 41. Yet we're using an old traffic study. I urge this board to reject this thing. You're never going to get the support of the neighborhood changing single-family homes into a commercial use. But more importantly, if you can't do that today and we have to take this up the line, we're prepared to do so. But at least reject it because the application is defective, in my opinion.

Thank you. Just so you know, whatever we do, we'll go up the line either way. Whether we approve or reject, it'll go to the commissioners.

And I think you'll see about four times as many people there with their pitchforks.

Thank you. Who's the third speaker so we can get them up to the empty mic?

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Gerard Howard.

Howard, if you could move up to the, is he here? Is he online?

The next speaker is Dean Ramanan.

Okay, he's here.

address 120 Carl Fine Drive all right that's the speaker then please mention your name for the record if you could move up to that mic and if you could proceed identify yourself yes good morning my name is Starling Hendrix I live at 196 Sharwood Drive my family and I have lived in Palm River since 2015 and had lived in the county since 2001 i want to talk a little bit this morning about the c word that everybody keeps talking about which is compatibility and i think that's an important factor in the entirety of this application the applicant has conceded in his presentation this morning that they have agreed to a self-imposed 35-foot height cap and they believe this is a good number of measure however under the current collier county ldc as the commission knows the zoning district permits structures up to 75 feet and a conditional use up to 125 feet the surrounding lots the parcel to the north with the four homes are zoned rsf3 and they are subject to a maximum height of 30 feet under collier county dimensional standards and in florida generally speaking an actual single-story residence is typically about 15 to 20 feet so a 35 foot commercial structure is still approximately 75 percent taller than the zoning maximum for every neighboring lot so i just want the commission to keep that in mind and potentially it could be twice the height of the homes that are immediately adjacent or would be immediately adjacent to this proposed uh addition Measuring a concession from a 75-foot baseline that should never apply in a single-family residence is not compatibility. It is the applicant asking for credit for not doing the worst possible thing they could do, which is raising it all the way to the top. so i would encourage and submit to the commission to consider that the concession the other c word that the applicant is using is not compatible with our c word which is compatibility and i would encourage the commission to deny this application thank you thank you who's the next speaker so they can come up to the empty mic

I'm Gerald Hoagland and I live at 120 Coral Vine Drive which is the road just the next road over from Palm River to the east and Right now with this new complex that they have built that you guys allowed at the end six-story building in a two-story building area That is going to have a lot of people in it. Already they come down Coral Vine Drive as a shortcut to get on to Palm River Drive. And unless you guys are willing to put speed bumps and everything else on there, because they come sailing by using this, all they have to do is come off the bridge, turn left on... Palm View and make that little jog to come down Coral Vine So that they avoid all that traffic at Palm River and and Pine View our paper Yes, at Piper. And there is a traffic jam there every day. All times of the day. And now you're going to put 30 more cars or whatever... in that area. That median that they have there is already the most unsafe thing there is because you can't see half the cars that are coming down there. So they are using Coral Vine as a bypass. for all the, they come down Coral Vine, turn left on Piper to go down to Airport Pulling, rather than take that bridge across to get onto Immokalee. And I know they say they are going to turn all that traffic from this parking lot that they have is going to be turning onto Palm View and that is going to really exceed all the traffic that's coming from that new place that they're building there because I don't know how many you guys approved or how many rooms there are, condos or whatever. But that's going to increase the traffic. And I know they're going to come down Coral Vine Drive. And when they're using it as a bypass, it is not as a, it's a speedway. because they don't care whether it's private property in there they don't care about how many kids or dogs are on that road there are no sidewalks so we have to use the road as our sidewalks to walk the dogs which is another sorrowful point for uh this area We needed sidewalks in our area and get rid of the swales because you've got water swales on each side of Coral Vine Drive. So the only place to walk is on that road, and they come down that road, and they'll give you the finger. They'll do everything... When you say slow down, they yell out the window at you and cuss you and everything else. And I don't believe that we really need the extra motel and have all that extra traffic because that's going to put more people down Coral Vine Drive. And I'm not going to get into the water shortage. Can you wrap up?

You're exceeding your time here? Yeah. Thank you. Well, if you have another thought, I'll give you another minute. I just don't want to hear the same thing.

I'm not going to get into all the water shortages we got now and all that, because I'm sure she will cover that. Thank you. That is my main concern. plus the property values are definitely going to go down. And the one thing I want to argue with him is all these Airbnbs. We've got three or four Airbnbs, and you're telling me that that's commercial property now. So what's to prevent anybody from buying all these Airbnbs and putting a motel right in the middle of our properties? I heard that you're saying short-term rentals anything under three days is not allowed is that right No they could rent it out on a daily basis

Any Airbnb, any residential unit in the state of Florida, unless you have a provision that predates the statute, you can rent those out on any duration that you need fit. That's the law.

Okay. Well, thank you.

now because they turn it into an Airbnb and then they can make it commercial.

Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Chris Collin.

Chris, if you could come up to the, and the current speaker is, please identify yourself.

My name is Dean Ramonet. My family and I live at 168 Pongview Drive, which is close proximity to the site. I'm here today to speak about the rezoning from RSF3 to commercial land use. The rezoning permanently removes RSF3 land from residential supply in one of North Naples most accessible ownership neighborhoods. And that cannot be undone. Palm River and its surrounding neighborhood represents something increasingly rare in Collier County. Established owner, occupied single family neighborhoods with a range of home prices, accessible broad cross sections in the county, where the medium home price now exceeds about $600,000. Neighborhoods like this, with intact residential characters, RSF3 zoning, proximity to employment corridors are finite, and it's going to diminish resources. Argument here operates at a zoning level, not a parcel level. whether these four houses are currently owned occupied rented or otherwise beside is besides the point what matters is the rsf3 zoning is designated that makes the residential use possible here as far as to write no special approvals to rezoning no gmpa required Once these parcels are converted to commercial plant units developments through a GMPA, that designation is permanent. Beyond the four lots, the precedent matters enormously. The hotel owner controls additional parcels and has a clear path to continue expanding northward. Each approval makes the next request easier. The cumulative effort of incremental commercial encroachment is a gradual erosion of our residential characters that makes Palm River and Willoughby Acres a viable ownership neighborhood. Once the character's lost, it can't be legislated back in. The county should weigh in not just what's being requested today, By approving this, this requests what's possible tomorrow. I'll leave you with this question. What's the county's policy for evaluating permanent loss of an RSF3 zoned land to commercial use in an established residential neighborhood? And has that analysis been done? Thank you very much for your time.

Next speaker?

The next speaker will be Missy, after this speaker, Missy Cowan.

Okay, please proceed. Identify yourself.

Good morning. I'm Chris Cowan and I'm a resident at 430 Palm View Court in the Palm River area. In the project location map that was shown, we're literally on the left upper diagonal house from the track B that's being proposed. So we are definitely impacted by this. I appreciate we've lived here for 12 years now. Sorry, no, no. But my wife, Missy, and I selected this location for very specific reasons that she'll go into. but i appreciate your practice of good governance here and that you're willing to listen to neighbors who are concerned on this issue you're in a difficult position and as has been expressed we're not objecting to the four houses already owned being run commercially nor, as some of us learned this morning for the first time, the three new properties further. I think Steve's playing a nice game of chess without the other side being able to make moves. I'll be brief here because there's really only one question before your planning commission, and it's do you honor the neighborhood's wishes and well-being, or do you enable the financial gain of one person? I ask that you do not recommend this application.

Thank you. Sorry.

I had no idea he was speaking.

My name is Missy Cowan, and I live at 430 Palmview Court.

Can I interrupt you for a moment? Can we get the next speaker up after her?

The next speaker is Craig Hendrick.

So I've been a resident of the Palm River community for 12 years. My home sits in the immediate vicinity of Fairways Motel, which means this proposed expansion will directly and personally affect my family. We hear a great deal lately about the idea of free Florida, and I'd like to offer a fuller interpretation of that phrase. It speaks to the freedom to do, to build, to expand, to pursue a business opportunity. But freedom is a two-sided coin. It also speaks to freedom from, from disruption, from noise, from the erosion of safety and peace in a neighborhood where families have chosen to put down roots. My husband and I purchased our home in this community deliberately and specifically for the quiet residential character it offered. that character is not incidental it's the very foundation of our property values and our way of life our quality of life the Planning Commission exists precisely for moments like this one to weigh competing interests and determine what is right for the community as a whole and I'd like to reiterate the community as a whole not simply what is profitable for one individual The rights of long-term residents to protect their peaceful slice of paradise should take precedence over a single property owner's desire for commercial gain. I respectfully and strongly urge you to vote no for both of these petitions, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker then would be Jeff Krause.

Jeff.

Are you speaking, Craig?

Okay.

I'm going to kind of make this short and sweet. Sorry, my name is Jeff Rouse. I'm a homeowner at 141 Palmview Drive. I've been in the neighborhood. I purchased in there 18 years ago. My property is adjacent to the hotel. It's right across the street from the proposed expansion project. So mine is directly across. I will be looking at the facade of this hotel if this happens, okay, out of my front door. So obviously I'm not. terribly pleased about it. I'm concerned about my property value being affected and I think rightfully so. Anyway, the point I wanted to make today is based around the idea of is there a need for this? Is there a need to... Let me restart. The FIRT. I believe one of the more important issues that the applicant hasn't shown is neat as to why adding 30 hotel rooms would be a public benefit that justifies rezoning for residential properties. According to the applicant's own studies, He identifies nine comparables within the immediate area, which is roughly about a three mile radius from Centerpoint Hotel, which represent a total occupancy of 1,742 rooms just in North Naples, in a three mile radius from the hotel. In addition to those 1,740 rooms, we also did an Airbnb search and a VRBO search. There are an additional 1,200 units in that same 300-mile radius just with Airbnb and VRBO. So now we're talking 3,000 units in a three-mile radius. Is there a need, or is the area overly saturated with short-term rentals? That's my question to you guys today. Those, I think that's really it, guys. I just wanted to get those numbers out. The 1742, the 1200, we have 3,000 units already in the immediate vicinity. Ask yourselves this. Is there any reason to justify an addition of 30 units into an already saturated market that, from my understanding and the research I've done and some of the other neighbors have done, only usually at its peak is at 65% occupancy? All right, thank you for your time today, guys.

The next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Craig Hendrick.

Does he have time seated, or is he?

No, he's speaking for himself, and then he'll be followed up by Ed Morder. Thank you.

Craig Hendricks, I live at 196 Sharwood Drive. This is a residential area where pedestrian safety already matters. The neighborhood includes families, pedestrians, and children. Increasing commercial traffic, even at modest volumes, is going to change the character and safety profile of the streets that were not designed for this additional traffic. They have not done a neighborhood level safety analysis of the local streets, and it wasn't included in the application. years ago a few years ago my daughter was coming down coming across piper going to cross over palm river boulevard and a vehicle coming south where we're talking about on the display earlier those cars that back out are perpendicular to palm river boulevard so the car was coming south on palm river boulevard And T-bone, my daughter's, the car my daughter was in, it's rolled over. So you can understand the velocity and the impact. She's okay, thankfully, but now we're gonna add 30 more units and vehicles from those units dumping onto Palm River Boulevard to head south. I mean it's just gonna make it worse they come down currently come down Palm River Boulevard and they want to catch the light at a Mockley Road okay they're not caring about anything else in the world and adding 30 more vehicles 30 more units to that is just gonna make this a lot worse so I would ask that you not approve the application. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Ed Boehner has been seated an additional three minutes by Dan Summers.

OK. You want the other speaker up?

He's the next speaker, right? I'm the next speaker.

The next speaker after that is Patricia Parisi.

Okay, so you're on.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Good morning, Commission. My name is Ed Bader. I have lived at 316 Sharwood Drive, just down the street, around the corner from the Fairways Inn, for 25 years. I've lived there for 25 years. I want to address the narrative made by the two studies or feasibility reports issued by Davidson Engineering and Zonda. Davidson Engineering is a local engineering firm, but as you're probably aware, Zonta is a California-based firm, and there was no indication in their report that anyone in their firm actually visited the motel site. So while it's hard to understand how reliable any conclusions from a California-based consulting firm can be, I'm going to address their report anyway. Let's start with Davidson. Davidson says, quote, the existing hotel maintains a good relationship with the neighborhood and is operated in a cleanly, quiet manner so as not to cause any adverse impacts, end quote. The Collier County, I want to direct your attention to the 129 page Collier County Sheriff's Report, which you all have, that shows that in the five years from 2021 to 2025, there are 118 incidences involving the Sheriff's Department at the motel. That averages almost two per month. And in the first three and a half months of 2026, there were seven calls to the Sheriff's Department. That's also two per month. I don't know how you put much value on the words much beloved since it's just a value judgment and its opinion. I don't know how you quantify that. But the sheriff's report paints a picture of a neighbor that doesn't operate in a quiet manner. I personally witnessed a fist fight myself while walking the dog on a quiet evening in our beautiful residential neighborhood by two intoxicated gentlemen in the back parking lot. Of course, I called the sheriff's department on that one. And you wonder why did the Collier County School Board eliminate the bus stop across the street from the motel? For safety reasons. But Davidson says, quote, this same quality of operation will be maintained in the proposed expansion, unquote. I certainly hope not. And how do they know that anyway? They say it will, quote, unquote, create, quote, a minimal impact to neighbors. Two calls to the sheriff's department on average every month, and you're proposing to increase this motel by 40%, but that won't have any more than a minimal impact to the neighbors? Davidson says the proposed expansion will be, quote, compatible with the surrounding residential land uses, and I emphasize the word residential. How can a commercial motel be compatible with residential units when it's surrounded, the motel is surrounded on three sides by residences? Davidson and Zonda both point out that the single-family residential homes that would be adjacent to the motel expansion, should that occur, are also owned by the motel owner. And therefore, that creates additional buffering to the residents. Wait a minute. Houses are not buffers to a motel. Regardless of who owns them, you don't buffer a motel with a house. Davidson also states these homes will be maintained as residential property, but how do they know that? Can they guarantee that, especially if four single-family residences adjacent to these other homes that the motel owner owns are torn down and replaced with a motel building? That just sets a precedent for those adjacent motel-owned homes to convert to more motel in the future. Zonda points to, quote, numerous similar uses in the vicinity of the subject, end quote. They are referring to two medical offices and a self-storage facility along Piper Boulevard, a frontage road that faces Immokalee Road. And they say those properties highlight that the motel location should not be considered inappropriate. But those properties are Zone C1, as they are low-intensity uses versus a motel. And they are not adjacent to single-family residential properties. They're adjacent to condominiums. Zonda references the home at 128 Palmview Drive that was damaged by fireworks on July 4th, 2021. This is the first property to be demolished. It's right next to the motel. They state that demolishing that home for the motel expansion quote will be an improvement to the neighborhood. The motel owner has indicated that they did not have adequate insurance to repair the home so that it has sat damaged now and vacant for almost five years, since July 4th of 2021. It seems to me like the best improvement to the neighborhood would be to repair this residential home and have it occupied instead of tearing it down and putting in a motel building. Now to further our claim that the Fairways Inn is not a beloved motel as stated, I would like to comment on the reports that you also have from the North Collier Fire Department. At the annual inspection on August 20th of 24, it was discovered that 22 of the existing 42 motel units now have kitchenettes installed without fire suppression systems or hoods. It's unclear though when those kitchenettes were actually installed because there's no permits that were issued, no permits that can be found. And the fire department report from 2023, the year earlier, didn't mention any kitchenettes in those 22 units. At the re-inspection a year later on August 14th of 2025, the cooktops remained with no fire suppression systems or hoods, while the owner was, quote, researching options, end quote, according to the report. A further meeting between the fire department and the owner occurred in November of last year and again in February of this year, and still with no approved plan in place to address the fire code violations. In closing, I'd like to advise you that there are almost 550 signatures on a petition opposing the Fairways Inn expansion. The people have spoken. The neighbors have spoken. Converting four single-family residential properties, whether they're rented out or not, into 30 units is not a compatible use. This is clearly the wrong use in the wrong location. I urge you to deny totally the fairways and petitions, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay, Mr. Speaker, the next speaker, Mrs. Parisi, has been seated six additional times by Ann Hoglin and Hugh Beckerman. Please identify yourself.

Good morning. My name is Pat Parisi. I live at 475 Palm River Boulevard. I am on the other side off of Cypress Way East.

Excuse me one minute. Are the people that granted time to her, are they here in the room? Thank you.

Okay. I have lived in Palm River for almost 30 years. I have seen many changes, both residential and commercial, in our neighborhood. You will be hearing from many or have heard from many of my concerned neighbors regarding this plan development. While I agree with their concerns, I have additional concerns. When I reviewed the narrative by the applicant that was presented, I quickly noticed that it was an illusion. The project proposes two separate tracks, track A and track B. They propose to put this into a CPDU. okay within a single PDU however they're not separate at all the two tracks share everything from parking including all amenities pools cheeky Hut shuffleboard check-in facilities I have it oh my presentation isn't up I had a presentation I don't know if I have to do something here

You might, but I think we should get you some help.

Okay. Thank you. My concern, well, this addresses Mike's, you brought up before, that you were only ruling today on tract B. That's a fallacy. They're trying to put tract A and tract B into one CPDU. Okay, so what you rule on today is tract A and tract B.

Excuse me one minute can and we'll buy back your time Mike is that true technically Ruling on both Basically this turns it into one correct that's correct okay that's correct Wow okay all right thank you for that

okay my concerns my concerns include traffic and design standards as the requirements of your ldc parking space is accessible from single family entrance from the single family i'm sorry parking spaces accessible from the single entrance to track b they only adding 22 when 33 are needed you need 11 parking spaces per 10 hotel rooms that's insufficient to meet the requirements of the LDC. A deviation from the requirements of the LDC has not been requested, nor should it be approved. Additionally, many of the parking spaces that support Track A and Track B are off-street parking. That's what we've all been talking about. Again, a deviation from the LDC has not been requested and should not be approved. The narrative itself and the back of their narrative states that they did not request any deviations from the LDC. The proposed design project with off street parking remains dangerous to our community, violates the LDC that I noted in my presentation. The LDC design standard and requirements are contradicted by allowing any off-street parking to remain. I would ask that the Planning Commission focus on all the design standards and requirements set forth in the LDC that are not being met by this design for this PUD, and specifically the violations that are important to our neighbor. The violations, in fact, these violations of the LDC result in conditions which the Planning Commission must eliminate all off-street parking. In your own LDC, it states that a parking shall be arranged that no vehicle shall be forced onto any street to gain access. All off-street parking must be arranged so that no motor vehicle shall have to block back onto any street. The LDC also, off-street parking vehicles do not interfere with the use to the adjacent streets. Additionally, and probably most importantly, your LDC clearly provides that no parking spaces on or within any public or private road or travel way shall be counted to fulfill the required number of spaces for this hotel. For the PUD, using off-street parking is a violation, and that's the only way that Track A and Track B meet their requirements. And I can go into it. 22 parking spaces have been added to track B when 33 are needed. 25 parking spaces are accessible for track A when 51 parking spaces are needed, if they're not using off-street parking. they are using 37 right now 37 off street park out of 42 off street parking spaces to fulfill their requirements to your ldc lastly i would like to discuss the development standards of the pud in relation to other adjacent that i think it was dean brought up we have two commercial corners two commercial developments at the entrances and exits of our neighborhood. The commercial project on the corner of Cypress Way East was limited to 35 feet. Leaving the current straight zoning height of tract A at 100 feet 10 stories is incompatible with the surrounding community and contrary to the reasons for creating this PUD in the first place. The applicant should be required to reduce the height of tract A to a more residential neighborhood standard consistent with that commercial development on Cypress Way East as well as their own tract B not to exceed 35 feet. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak today. I urge you to consider all of the violations

the LDC that you and Collier County Board put into place thank you Thank you we have a next speaker Yes our next speaker will be a virtual speaker Anne Leafkigs Mike can I ask you a question

I hear this is a combined PUD is this past speaker correct that when you combine A and B that A is now subject to current codes No A is existing they have incorporated the the specific zoning standards of the RT zoning district into the proposed PUD the only way that they would be in violation is is if they redevelop the site and they sought to try to maintain those that bar that that parking as it exists because they are not asking to maintain those that that parking as a deviation they're not requesting a deviation because they said if the project is redeveloped they have to uh they have to eliminate those those on-street parking it has to go away so they don't have to don't have to request a deviation for what they're entitled to what their grandfathered in right now it's recognized within within the PUD with the language that says if it's ever redevelopment the on-street parking has to go away

I met with him at the Fairways Inn okay so what you're saying is correct however what I just stated was they only added 22 parking spaces on site for track B so where is everybody else going to park if you look at their own which is on the screen right now there is one exit out of track B These 11 other additional that they're trying to count with their 22, there's no way of getting out onto the street. They have to go onto track A. So those should not be counted as track B parking. So track B parking is only adding 22. And Mr. Davies did express that they will be improving, his words,

improving track day with this project so does that mean they're going to go up 10 stories does that mean the parking where are they going to put the parking okay so the parking though is established at the sdp stage the site development plan amendment stage that ms cook referenced earlier you're not really looking at the details of the parking as part of the master plan plan review

I was going to remind you this is a conceptual master plan this isn't it we're not we're not counting spots parking spots within a conceptual master plan the requirement is that track B must contain all parking for track B on track B it's clear when they build track B the parking for track B the required parking for track B must be placed on track B where they can't get approved from a site development standpoint Okay thank you

Next speaker. You need a break or are you okay?

Yeah.

You could use a break? Okay. Let's take a quick break. Come back at 11. We'll give her 12 minutes.

Don't you forget he'll take care of you. It don't matter what you do. The moment you let him sing the melody you provide. Why are you in so much hurry? Is it really worth the worry? Look around, then slow down. What's a knock inside the bubble? Does your head ever give you trouble? It's no shame, trade it in. Hang on, help is on its way. I'll be there as fast as I can. We'll be right back.

Get up off of that thing and dance till you sing it now. Get up off of that thing. . . . .

. .

It's always been you to wash away my fears. It's always been you each night and day. Thank you.

I can't get you out of my mind. I can't get you out of my mind.

I can't get you out of my mind. I promise you I'll change my way. I promise you love's here to stay. Hey, little man, depend on me. I'll be yours through eternity. You used to call me an angel. Thank you.

I live my life like there's no tomorrow. And all I've got, I haven't still. At least I don't need to beg or borrow. Yes, I'm living at a free start.

Chair, you have the mic.

Okay, one more time before they fire me. We'll continue. We have one more speaker. The speaker is on Zoom. Could you please connect them?

Yes. Ann, can you hear us? I requested her to unmute.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

Morning. Thank you. Glad you can hear me. Local business owner and fortunately Palmer River homeowner at 266 Fairway Circle. I wanted to request that you oppose the request for expansion and rezoning and I'll expand on a couple of points and concerns. The traffic study that was conducted in 2024. As someone mentioned, the artwork apartments wasn't a factor at the time. It was a 12th apartment property vacant, you know, nearing conclusion now to have 41 apartments. So at the minimum, we would expect those 40 vehicles to utilize that single lane road that's lined with homes. If there happened to be two adults in those apartments, then we could see upwards to 80 more vehicles. that wasn't incorporated into this study. Additionally, La Playa Golf Course, which uses the same street as Fairways End and DR Threats, what would be DR Threats Department, has changed ownership style. So it's an individual owner now, and with business changes, we can expect investments and a drive for membership, and we would anticipate heavier traffic from them with increased tee times, meals at the clubhouse etc as they split from the beach club and another concern or loop i would ask that gets closed is the turn lane that is directly in front of fairways in that was deferred for future evaluation and future you know iteration on what those needs would look like but i think it's a disservice to you as a planning committee to not know what that would entail because of safety concerns to not know the greater impact that it's going to have on the community then several bus stops that are surrounding fairway in um ed mentioned they've they've shifted the bus stops but they're still within 40 feet to the east and behind which is the west of the property so to know what that turn lane would need i think is a big factor that should be detailed out and have more specifications to really vet how that would fare and play out with the single lanes there and the amount of pedestrian plans and residential traffic for the bus stop um And then it is, in my opinion, they mentioned in the application that they were a benefit to the neighborhood. However, the Civic Association has been responsible for the expense and upkeep of the median, the landscaping, the signage, et cetera, there as you enter into Palm River and directly in front of Fairway Inn. And they haven't contributed in several years. So I think that that is actually a reflection more so of, their opinion of the neighborhoods. You know, the actions are speaking louder than words. So I think with the absentee owners, it's apparent to me that they care less about the community and the Palm River residents than they do on the business factors and trying to increase their room. And what that would look like. So, as a minimum, I would ask that. Or an updated traffic study to factor in the increase of rooms that they're adding on to it. Our department's conclusion, and then we'll apply a increase. Traffic as well, because again, that's a single lane road going in and out with no sidewalks and those factors were not a part of the traffic study, which I. I respect that that was done, but it would be outdated and no longer relevant even today, but furthermore in the next year or two when their project is completed.

Thank you.

Is that possible to request a new traffic study?

Is it possible to request a new traffic study? Are you talking about relative to the one that was submitted with the petition?

Correct yeah, to require 1 that would factor in the additional traffic volume with these other components.

Jamie Jamie cook again for the record director of development review when they come in for their site development plan, they're going to have to provide an operational study, which will be more specific to what is actually on the site to include the number of rooms. for the entire site as well as the pool or any other amenities that they have. When they take all of that into consideration, the operational analysis will look at things like whether turn lanes are needed or other improvements in the areas. So yes, a new traffic study will be done when they come in with their site development plan. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other, no other speakers? Is there anybody else in the room that we've overlooked that wants to speak? If not, I am going to close the public session. I'm going to ask Noel if he has, if he wants some rebuttal time for the comments that we heard.

I do thank you Mr. Chairman we do appreciate the comments and the feedback from the public I'm not going to address every single statement that was made I would like to share my objection to a number of false statements that were made and provide clarifications to this board with respect to some of those technical matter I do stand by my initial presentation as well as the testimony and reports from staff that we meet the pertinent legal criteria and are consistent with the land development code and GMP before I go into the substance of some of the comments that were made I would like to preface those Responses with an important caveat, and that caveat is that the weight that you give the evidence that's before you today is important. The evidence you have before you from applicants team. Both in the form of documents. and testimony as well as the same for staff is expert testimony and documentation, which is to be accorded the significant weight or it should be accorded significant weight. I'm going to go through the disagreements with false statements made from the public, but I think it's important that that weight that's given experts is weighed appropriately against speculation, against lay testimony, personal opinions. I'm not saying that that evidence is not relevant. I think that you can consider that evidence. But I think that you have to consider that evidence in accordance with the governing legal criteria for this proceeding. and weighing that evidence against expert evidence from staff and applicant. so a few clarifications and then i want to dive deeper into some of the bigger categories someone mentioned financial gain whether or not my my client obtains a financial gain from these applications is not a relevant legal criterion that's sort of an example of the theme of my rebuttal here which again is you got to weigh the evidence and you got to look at whether or not we satisfy the legal criteria and my position that we do it's staff's position that we do someone mentioned 30 feet as max height in rsf3 that is not a correct statement the ldc very clearly states it's 35 feet just wanted to clarify that we are not in violation of the ldc regarding parking there was a mention of a fire violation None of that is true. None of that is accurate. There's been no findings of violation for fire for code or otherwise. You heard the staff testimony with respect to parking. The parking is legally grandfathered. That's the existing parking for the end today. All the new parking spaces as required by today's code for the additional 30 rooms will be parked on track to be. A sidewalk was mentioned. We are providing a sidewalk and our master concept plan shows that on the eastern side of track B alongside Palm River Boulevard. I did want to mention also on the driveways. So there are There are technically five with respect to those four northern parcels because one's sort of a horseshoe driveway. So there are five access points today or entry points off of Palm River Boulevard and Palmview Drive. Those would all be eliminated and replaced with the single access point for the Tract B expansion. There was mention of not paying dues or sharing. My client shared with me he always does that. He participates in whatever is voluntary and is always paying his fair share. So that's just not a true statement. The words need and benefit were mentioned. Your land development code and the Florida statutes governing GMPAs has very specific requirements on that. We have to provide you, we have to provide your staff with a market study conducted by a professional to demonstrate the need for this. That is in your packets. That has been duly reviewed and approved by the county staff. And it demonstrates, as staff is recommending, that there is a need. I mentioned in the beginning that I think we're all aware of the number of luxury hotels that exist in town and more that are coming online. This is a rare breed. Here, this is a little different. And this is a sort of subsection of the hospitality market that provides high-quality lodging but does so at a more reasonable rate. It's in a good location. It's in proximity to employment centers close by to two different activity centers at Immokalee Airport and Immokalee 41. And it's not competing with... Ritz Carlton with the Four Seasons but it does provide that doesn't mean there's not a need for a more affordable lodging option here in Collier County. Benefit was also mentioned or the lack thereof and i want to quote the staff report these aren't my words this is staff so in the staff report for these items proposed use is a compatible use with adjacent residential development it then goes on to say it is quote a benefit to the neighborhood and local employment centers such as arthrex providing visiting families with alternate options to stay near loved ones and business professionals lodging in proximity to work opportunities at reasonable rates. So benefit and need do go together. We provided again the expert market study that goes through that analysis that demonstrates need that demonstrates the benefit that's been reviewed and approved by the county's expert professional staff. So I want to clarify and answer any questions that you all have about the parking. There is an existing in today. We're aware of this. It's been there since the 1960s. There is existing parking that goes with that. All of this predated, and if I may, I've got, this is going to help contextually, okay. what's on your screen this is the 1968 historical aerial and this is from fdot and it's not the clearest but this is the area that we're talking about so this is palm river boulevard divided and here is the depiction of the parking spaces that's east of the building, but west of the roadway for Palm River. This is, you can see it a little more clearly here, and that's covered by the trees. But the point is this, and you can see, of course, what's around it or what's not around it from when it was originally developed but just to put that in context we're not in violation of of the parking code we've we've been here with our parking spaces since the 60s staffs looked at that we work closely with staff with that and there is a a very common legal concept that I'm sure you're all familiar with about grandfathering status or what we call legally non-conforming. The parking spaces are there. I admit that they're not perfect and that's not how it would be designed if it was designed in 2026. But this is in 1968 when it was first developed. That's how it was done. those rights are are grandfathered and we're agreeable and I wanted to state that for the record so that it's clear to the staff condition to the language that you heard staff say that in the event that uh god bless you that that has been that that tract a is redeveloped or at any time that the county truly feels that these conditions are unsafe Mr. Trabilcock as I mentioned is here um he went through as did county staff and looked at the incident reports or the the accident reports excuse me for this specific section of palm river boulevard and my understanding but i'll defer to county staff is that there's there's been one accident in the last five years the condition of that roadway is not deemed unsafe in the event that it is deemed unsafe In the event that it is deemed unsafe We will remove the parking parking spaces so it there are there are two prongs to that language We're agreeable to one is a redevelopment of track day, but also if County Transportation staff comes to me If Lorraine, Mike, Trinity, someone from transportation staff comes and says, look, we've been tracking the data again, not anecdotal speculative evidence. But as you know, your county transportation department has a lot of data. Right. And that data was analyzed and will continue to be analyzed if there are. And I don't know what the standard is that they use. Right. And I think as far as what is deemed unsafe. But if they come to me and say it is our professional expert opinion, which opinion has changed from today because of an increase in. accidents in this section of palm river boulevard we got to remove the spaces and we'll do that how we fit those how we work with miss cook and her staff as far as what that looks like on an sdp we've got to do and we've got to figure that out and that's my client's problem to deal with but for now we are focused on tract b and the parking for tract b is all contained on tract b but the existing spaces with go with the 1960s built building that buildings that exist today those spaces are grandfathered unless we redevelop tract a or unless that condition changes and at the time that it does and county transportation staff says Noel, you've got to fix that because they're unsafe. We're going to do that, and we're committing to that on the record today. transportation piece again norm is here if anyone has specific questions i just want to reiterate that again this is an expert report it complies with your code your code has specific criteria for what these transportation impact statements look like as you heard from ms cook we've got to update those with specific more specific numbers incident to the site development plan approval we will do that that will be reviewed by county staff again at the expert level uh there is sufficient capacity on the roadways for the uh under the current auir uh it it doesn't matter again what you're told speculatively by the neighbors about what they think might happen with the traffic You have to rely upon the expert evidence, which is the TIS, which I know you're all familiar with, and that process and that review by county staff. So again, it's weighing of that evidence. I'm not saying that that evidence isn't important. I'm not saying that that evidence cannot be considered. I'm simply asking that in accordance with the governing legal standards for these proceedings, you've got to weigh that evidence with the expert evidence on applicant and staff side. The police reports. Like anything, the devil is in the details on these. I don't know if they brought a copy of them. I have seen a copy of them. If you look closely at the reports, a number of them, most of them, relate to medical emergencies. So I think this, I think someone mentioned painting a picture, and that this was all calls to the Sheriff's Department. I mean, these were calls to 911, right, whether it's a medical emergency or something else. And all of those calls, I think they got a public records request and they reviewed them. I think it's important that we walk through them. I think as a preparatory matter, I think it's also important that my client and every citizen should be encouraged to call 911 if there's an emergency, whether that be medical or some other type of emergency. And the report, they were saying two a month. don't disagree that I think it's approximately well certain months there are two incidents but that meant that may be elderly person fell elderly person had a stroke they're trying to present it to you as if there is some sort of safety issue at the end and that is not again what the evidence reflects and what those reports reflect if you if you look back at the most recent reports you'll see a series of incidents relating to and i think the report states kids living in the palm river neighborhood who are banging on doors at the end essentially playing ding dong ditch at the fairways in that's not some sort of nefarious activity by my client it is a gross mischaracterization to try to assert that there's some sort of serial safety issue at the end based on a general against speculative statement that there are police reports that occur at the facility or that my client had the occasion or had had the had the good sense to call 911 in the event of emergency. my client has always interacted well with the neighborhood they have prided themselves and their family has prided themselves on trying to be a good neighbor within the palm river community they've done that and they've peacefully coexisted for many decades this proposed expansion doesn't change that i know that many Many of the residents and their family members stay at the inn on a regular basis. We haven't heard any complaints about safety, police reports, parking, traffic. It's only now that we're hearing these and I think the reason is that it's dislike for these applications. uh the word compatibility was mentioned again this is a key prong of the staff review staff is recommending approval because we are compatible with the neighborhood we have been for decades and expanding that same use does not change the current compatibility that exists today again you heard evidence from my team and from staff experts in their field that have reviewed the applications including with respect to compatibility and given our landscape buffers open space water management the way the site is oriented all that all you know all the testimony that you heard from zoning director bosey we meet the governing criteria and it's because of those mitigation efforts it's because of the thoughtful site design it's because of the buffering and all those requirements that don't exist today based on by right use that we are compatible. Again, the staff report states the proposed use is, quote, a compatible use with adjacent residential development. And that analysis, again, is expert testimony and expert documentation in support of that position.

Commissioner Spraza.

Mr. Davies, I have two questions. The first one will be for you and Mr. Boese. Yes, sir. I don't think I have this correct, but let me ask. If you were to go to a redevelopment program back up if this gets approved and you go for a redevelopment program for I'll call it parcel a the current fairways in is it possible or legal within the statute that you could put a hundred foot building on that property

By right. Yes, the RT zoning has a hundred foot height limitation.

Okay, great second question is for Mr. Davies I did review I reviewed previously and just double-checked everything now regarding the kitchenettes Does your client now have the kitchenette problem resolved yes or no

Can you elaborate about what the kitchenette problem? Sure.

There's no fire suppression system in 22 of the rooms.

I know that he has met with the fire department. I know that there has been no finding of some sort of fire violation and to the extent that there's some compliance issue that's going to be remedied by my client.

Okay. Well, it first started back in November 18th, 2024. The last statement was given in December 23rd, 2025 that a courtesy. Oh, I'm sorry. Later than that, a courtesy meeting occurred on February 12th. Property management advisors. No changes have occurred to the stove tops in the guest rooms. Changes will not occur until April, possibly April at the earliest. If those changes are taken.

And if I may, which document are you reading from?

I am reading from North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Okay. Inspection dates throughout.

If there is a concern that the fire department has, I know there's been no finding a violation. If there's a concern that the fire department has about the kitchenettes or about a lack of suppression system, and that is required by law, my client will do that and will do that right away.

okay but it looks and I'm not trying to be argumentative here but it looks as if they've had 16-18 months to take care of the problem and they haven't yet and I'm concerned with if it's something as simple as fire suppression in the hotel room that they haven't done in 14-18 months

that doesn't bode well for them as far as what they're doing i haven't seen that document i don't know if that is a fair assessment frankly of 14 to 18 months i can tell you that if there is a compliance issue with respect to that especially a safety one i mean my clients here and can commit commit to doing that now before i mean before the let's may we just ask them has it been taken care of today it's in the process of okay

all right that's fine it's all I ask sir excuse me I'm not trying to be a pain here 14, 18 months. It's in process. Gives me the answer.

Well, but I think it's important.

No, that's all I ask. Was it done today? And it's not.

I don't know which document you're referring to.

A legal document from North Collier Fire on an inspection. Inspection date and report.

And so it's a finding of violation from the fire department?

yes uh failed in red fl uh nfpa 01 2021 chapter 50 yeah so i think that is that is an allegation of a of a fire issue where the property owner works together with the fire department to remedy it we're we're working through to remedy that okay And it's taken you roughly 18 months to remedy?

I would dispute that assessment of it, that it's taken 18 months. All right.

I'm done asking questions right now. Thank you.

I got a question. Go ahead, Mike. The house that your client owns directly behind it that has the roof burned off? Yes. Has that roof been fixed?

So there was a fire that occurred there through no fault of my client and based on a tenant that lived there. What year? 2021.

2021. Has that roof been fixed? That's my only question. Yes or no? It's an ASMR question.

So I do not believe that there are. if I may have the opportunity to respond I do not believe that there are any life safety issues with respect to that this process with respect to the proposed expansion has taken significant time the thinking is that that would be demolished as part of the expansion but I do not believe it presents any life safety issue there's been no finding of violation with respect to that

Any other questions for? Go ahead, Michelle.

So no, I'm really concerned about this project. Just as they've mentioned, you know, the lack of attention to safety. And then this I have a 63 page document in front of me with all these police report calls to the police. over an eight year period. That's what I'm looking at. Another gentleman referenced over 100 page document. And these are like serious incidences.

I'm happy to go through them. I mean, I'm not doubting the seriousness of emergencies. I think it's important that we look at the specifics of what that was relating to.

I almost want to ask the owner to come up and explain how is he okay with this? How is he okay with operating a hotel that has these serious incidents reports? I mean, if I live next to this, I would be in shock. When I read this, I was in shock.

Okay, all right, please.

And so I'm struggling to give him 30 more units when he has trouble managing what he currently has. There's nothing that tells me that he is not going to care for this new building any more than he's not caring for the existing building.

Can I ask what concerns you about him not caring for this building? And I think we can, I'd like to go through the specifics of the police report if we, the police reports.

I mean, if you want me to read them out loud, it's quite, it's quite shocking.

So I'm going back from the most recent. This is from the summary from my team's review of this.

Do you have the 63 page? Is that what you're referring?

I think so, yeah. That's the only one that I've seen. I believe it's the last five years of calls to 911.

Eight years, OK.

So this one, the first says, legal advice complaining about quality of care received from Collier EMS. second and that was april 11 2026. medical next one april 10th medical emergency refused medical treatment for heart problems there are um suspicious person suspicious kid knocking on guest doors ran into neighborhood these were the i think the palm river children that were doing this because this has happened a few times same next one kids riding on bicycles and pounding on guest doors ran down neighborhood street next one kids riding on e-bikes and kicking on guest doors ran down neighborhood street number seven uh january so that was from april to january so that's a three-month snapshot and i you know ms mcleod i i i respect and appreciate and and and i think that it's it is very important that we assess whether that statement is is is accurate and reflected in the data and in the evidence before you today as to

how my client cares for this building cares for the safety and if there is a is a safety problem i mean i'd like to read some of these like there's a baker act and this is most recent on up there is so where's the drugs and alcohol um okay i'll give you dates the baker act was april 10th of 2026

And I think the notes say refuse medical treatment for heart problems, but not determined to meet criteria for Baker Act.

April the 10th, there's narcotics, drugs, or alcohol.

April the 10th of 2026.

Meds or Patient is aggressive and They were taken away in an ambulance. I do see the kids, a lot of kids in the neighborhood causing trouble.

We want to continue going through that, or do we want to say you guys disagree with the interpretation of the data? Because there's many more factors that have been discussed here than that, so I don't want to get hung up on whether there's an inordinate amount of good claims versus nothing they can control.

the last thing i would want to be is is disrespectful to that to that statement i just want to make sure that this board is making its decision today based on the legal criteria and also the evidence that's before it and not just a statement from a neighbor saying they're not taking care of the property it's not safe when i don't believe that the underlying data supports that from the police reports or otherwise And again, the standard, and I hate coming back to this because I know you're all very familiar with it, but you've got to weigh the evidence and you've got to give the proper weight to expert evidence versus speculative testimony from neighbors.

Mr. Davies we do have an awful lot of evidence we had roughly 400 pages probably more like 450 when we include all of the emails and the information that was passed down to us for us to review before this proceedings and I would like to ask the rest of the Commission here are there any other questions that we want to get out on the table before we bring this to a vote because I would like to see a vote of this to come quickly If I may Mr. Sbrazza though it's not the number of pages or the number of people that don't like this project No I'm talking about us reviewing evidence

Right, but it's whether or not that evidence proves or doesn't prove whether the legal criteria have been met. Okay.

But I think there's a lot of other criteria in terms of the legal there's a lot of subjective criteria that's going to go into this uh but i i'm with mr speraza i'd like to get into a discussion if you don't have anything more to offer or mr bosey is anything you feel you should offer um nothing further from i'm not looking for anything but nothing further from the staff but i will say and just understand the the issue of compatibility is a big issue related to rezoning of property

And if you feel evidence that's provided for within police reports, I mean obviously that can be related to compatibility issues. Just that you're on safe ground to have this discussion, it's part of the evaluation criteria.

Any other questions with that? We'll close and open it up. I'd like to kind of start out more for the audience. First of all, I want to thank you. This is the first session I've come to with that many public speakers where everybody didn't repeat what the previous person said. You all spoke on a different topic. When you go to the commissioners, do the same thing. Don't overlap.

Well, we might have an argument at the dinner table with the couple in the back, but...

But I wanted to... You know, we're all volunteers, and we're... We're going to make an opinion of this group to the commissioners who are really the decision makers. Our job is to try and facilitate as many of the projects as possible that they don't have to spend a lot of time on that are pretty innocuous. But we all probably view the roles we have a little bit differently. Since we're all paid the same, we still have different views of why we're here. I can tell you why I'm here. I look back that 20 plus years ago, the county put a roadmap together called the Gross Management Plan. And I view us as the caretaker of that plan for two reasons. First, infrastructure is planned Accordance with that growth management plan, which is periodically changed And second you as residents have a right to assume pending some huge benefit to the community that we don't see That you have a right to count on that plan as to what's going to happen in your area. So it's it's a very difficult Scale to balance we look at I look at, the way I view it, what is the public benefit and what is the neighborhood impact? We could get into all of these little details, but to me the neighborhood impact is overwhelmingly the winner I I don't see enough public benefit To change the growth management plan and if it needs to be changed in a situation like this Then the individuals who drafted it which is the county commissioners should change the plan. So I'm going to recommend against this Knowing that the county commissioners will have the final say

yeah you want to go next sure paul can i paul can i ask have you closed a public hearing and open for commissioner discussion yes i thought we did yeah yeah yeah we did so if you want to speak thanks push your button joe well i would have to raise my hand here okay um mike was mike was up next oh it's up to you i don't matter go ahead i'll i'll let me know because i'll after mike or whomever Michelle or whomever, I'd like to just add my thoughts. Thanks.

Yeah, I'm with you on the growth man, the GMP. I don't I kind of try to stick to the GMP. I don't want to. I don't really see any need for deviation. The Airbnb thing, I think that's totally different than what a hotel is. I don't think this is compatible with the neighbors. I think that they own the four houses behind it. They own the additional four or three houses. All they do, they could actually come back very easily if we allow this and get the additional four houses. Changed into the same exact setting into the wrong into the into a neighborhood setting I'm gonna recommend denial as well Thank You Michelle Really I really feel like you know if if I saw better

compatibility I don't know if I need to use that word but I just don't feel that this developer owner has earned this I'm going to recommend denial too I'm a stickler for

Technical issues code violations and I'm not going to assume But I'm wondering if the kitchenettes were installed and modified within the buildings correctly with inspections and licensed electricians What's more concerning with me and I have the documentation right here it's in the two reports I have from the fire department that roughly 14 to 18 month period something as simple as Fire suppression in the 22 units was not looked after. To me, sends a clear signal on what this owner intends to do with the way he operates his business. I also will vote no for this.

the other I can say a couple things yeah just live there I've had friends and relatives stayed there at the motel over the last 20 or almost 30 years that you've been the owner sir it's it's the rooms are not very nice it's kind of a seedy place and that's sort of what brings some of the bad element there a little bit of bad faith Is what I see and I don't trust that all of a sudden you're going to change it It's going to be a good faith situation where you're going to be doing things for example what Noel said about the parking If we see that there's a problem, we'll fix it. I don't trust it right now I don't trust that statement and I don't see that so well I figure we'll be arguing about it in the future or someone else will be arguing about it I'd like to see I would have liked to have seen a little more good faith in where some of the things would have been addressed before today. These are kind of empty promises.

Joe, closing comments?

Yeah. First of all, I think the comments and Mike, I appreciate your concern about the encroachment going forward. But certainly any encroachment beyond track B would certainly have to go through a very expensive public hearing process again. And typically, Heidi typically does advise us that precedence is not what authorizes future development. But that said, I have some very, very deep concerns about moving forward on this. I made it clear to Noel when I spoke with him. This is a unified plan of development. Despite its track A and track B, it's still a unified plan of development. It's a PUD. It's converting RT zoning to PUD, and I look at that as one development, irrespective that it's track A and track B. I have some very deep concerns about track A. I'm absolutely appalled at the response that I just heard about the fire codes. Look, I was the community development administrator. The building director worked for me, and one of the things we enforced Strictly, it was the fire codes. If there were cooktops or other things that were installed, if this were to move forward, and if it was to move forward, it moves forward as a unified planet development, my stipulations would be, one, that there would be a complete inspection of the existing facilities to ensure that there's no code violations, fire code violations. Number two, and I made this clear to Dole when I spoke with him, I will not move forward with this and allow for the perpendicular parking. At the first development order, the owner would have to come in and discuss a plan on how they would remove the perpendicular parking and to allow for either safe parking along the street. I think there is enough room for safe parking at parallel parking, but that would be between the county. But for me to vote for approval of this, I would have to have clear understanding that this is a unified plan of development, that the parking, though it's grandfathered, it's no longer grandfathered when it comes in as a unified plan of development. They would have to resolve the perpendicular parking. And again, I'm going to stipulate or stress that any fire code violations, 18, 20 months of noting violations with nothing being taken care of. I don't even understand how they can deal with this through an insurance basis, but I will wait to hear if there's any proposals and I'll see where it goes. But if this were the move forward, my first stipulation would be that at the first development order, the applicant would have to come in and find in the county how they would resolve and remove the perpendicular parking to correct. What I think is I could not allow the move forward to allow what I believe is a violation of the land development code and they would have to abate that parking or at least correct that that petition is error situation as well. But I I'll hold off until I hear any motions. Thank you for allowing me to comment.

Any more comments from the Commission? Do I have any? Recommendations.

Yes, I'd like to recommend that for petition PL2. We're going to vote on both of them together on these two. Correct, yes, they will be a common vote. I would like to recommend for the petition PL20240000329 and accompanying PL20240000220 that we deny the petition that we deny both of these petitions together

I'll second that.

All in favor of Commissioner Sparazza's recommendation?

Right. In favor of a denial.

Oh, you're in favor of your recommendation, which is a denial. Excuse me. All in favor of the proposal?

Aye. Aye.

All opposed? So on a six to nothing, it is rejected.

Paul, if I could just add something at the end. Of course, the current zoning still stands and that the petitioner has every right to come in under the existing RT zoning to make any changes or plans or corrections or whatever they want to do on that existing site. I think the public needs to be aware that that certainly is allowable. It's RT zoning and the zoning allows him to go to a maximum of 100 feet.

thank you I was just going to remind the Planning Commission that based upon no items being continued the July 2nd meeting will be officially cancelled we'll send out an email to let you guys know that but that was gonna be a difficult one anyway My second is canceled, and we will send out another email for the July 16th meeting. It will be a 4 o'clock start time.

Yep, got that. Are there any new business?

Mike, can I ask about the July, is that the July 16th meeting?

We're going on to the agenda, so please.

Joe, the July 16th Planning Commission meeting is going to start at 4 o'clock. We're going to have two LDC amendments that can be heard during the day, and then we will have three that need the 5.05 start time.

All right. Now, most of the other commissioners, I don't know if they've gotten information on those two LDC amendments.

uh but they're going to be pretty contentious is that sufficient is that the two that have to deal with the quail well creek creek yes those are the nighttime hearings those are the ones that are that's why we started at four o'clock because the two ldc amendments that we have are very procedural okay those are at night yes all right so we i would probably

least i don't know if the other commissioners have been contacted but i do expect certain a lot a lot of public to participate in that ldc hearing for that night it's a fairly contentious issue so all right so our next thanks just to confirm our next meeting is not until

The 16th of July.

Correct. And it's an afternoon start.

At 4 p.m., correct. Do we have any old business?

No.

No. Any new business?

I like this. See, he gets it next time.

Yes.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. So moved.

Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. We are closed.