Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/17/2017August 17,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COTINTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida" August 17,2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Govemment Comple* 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florid4 with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Karen Homiak ABSENT: Ned Fryer Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, ZontngManager Fred Reischl, Planner Jeftey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of49 August 17,2017 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAN: Everybody, good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, August lTth meeting ofthe Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegrance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer is absent. Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONEREBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearbom? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Both Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Fryer indicated they had other commitments they had to meet today, so they're excused - their absences are excused. And, with that we'll move into normally a simple item, addenda to the agenda, but it will not be so simple today. We have a little discussion to have. Most of you were notified either by email or phone conceming the Cimrs Pointe project. What happened is last Thursday, after the staffreport was issued, it was noticed that the NIM meetings and minutes and standards were not in there. In reviewing the LDC, they're required to be - that NIM is required to be heard 15 days before this public meeting. This was only seven days, so we couldn't hear it today under any circumstances because its inconsistent with our Code of Laws -- or our Land Development Code. As a result, we looked for another date in which this room was available, try -- in keeping in with the expedited permitting process that Cimrs Pointe was set up under. The soonest date that could have been possible was the 3lst of August, but then earlier this week another discovery was made is that they had not gotten time in front of the CRA. The NIM that was held in that area provided the simple notice of 500 feet. A lot of the people in Bayshore involved in the CRA were all not aware of everything that was going on with the NIM and the other issues. So with the help of Commissioner Taylor and Leo Ochs we were able to -- we were able to be able now to continue this until the September 7th meeting, which is our regular meeting, and the CRA will have time to have had a presentation by the applicant for the Cimrs Pointe project to their board first so they can provide us with their recommendation and input on that particular project. That also - what is particularly important is that provides the time for the Planning Commission report to get to the Board before the Board's 26th meeting. So everlthing stays on schedule. The whole issue probably occurred because of the expedited permitting. I think everybody rushed to get this accommodated and, as a resul! some things didn't get correlated as they normally would. So, with that I would like to get a motion from this panel to continue PUDA-PL2O110001626, which is the Cimrs Pointe RPUD, to the September 7th meeting of this Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved CHAIRMAN STRAN: Made by Patrick. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) Page 2 of 49 August 17,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifi by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 5-0. There is another point I'd like to stress to staff, and it was something that now shows up because of this particular case. It was odd that the CRA hadn't had time to review this, and there's various issues that went back and forth between the applicant and the CRA trying to find a time where it worked for everybody, but I also noticed that in the checklist that's provided for a rezone application, as well as checklists for conditional uses, variances, and other things, those checklists don't contain a reference to the CRA. Now, I know the CRA is not a required review, but I think it would be - it would be beneficial if the applicants were noticed earlier on that they need to get with the - that it be preferrable to talk with the CRA or present to the CRA if they're involved in one. And we have two CRAs. We have Bayshore and lmmokalee. You could add a line to a checklist so everybody just knows it's there and can then respond to it. I think it may help avoid these kind of situations. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I definitely agree. We have on our checklist routing slips for special reviews such as City of Naples or Marco Island or Airport Authority. We definitely will add that forthe CRA -- both CRAs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one was kind of like a double whammy as far as scheduling, because one reason was the NIM, and I think everybody's aware of that now. And the second now is the CRA issue wasn't even discovered until this week. So it's good that -- if we could do that. At least the applicants know early on they better address it, because when it gets here, that's one of the things we'd be asking for. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. And during the pre-application meetings for these types of petitions, it's always good to go through the checklists for those special reviews to make sure the applicant's aware that they need to coordinate with them, and staffneeds to make sure the routing goes to those agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you, Ray. Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning andZonngDirector. And I just wanted to let the Planning Commission know - and I appreciate your comments, Mark -- on the 22nd, next Tuesday, Deborah Forrester will be in. She's the executive director for the Immokalee CRA as well as the Bayshore CRA. She'll be in to the planning offices at three o'clock. And we're going to bring in not only the principal planners, but our redevelopment team, our LDC amendment team, introduce the team to Deborah and discuss some of these coordination issues that maybe we had lacked in the past without the designated executive director. So these issues are going to be put on the table, as you said, and articulated a lifile bit better to the planners in terms of how that coordination needs to be stressed at the very beginning of the process. But I appreciate those comments, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And the other thing, if anybody -- are any members of the public here specifically for the Cimrs Pointe project? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If those of you -- those that are watching, the CRA is going to meet on this matter. They have a regular meeting. It was initially scheduled for September 5th, I believe. By us going on the 7th, we'll have time to have a verbal analysis or a presentation done by the CRA director or a member of the CRA at our meeting on the 7th, so we'll have the benefit, then, of the CRA's input on this Page 3 of49 August 17,2011 matter. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I will not be here on the 7th. It's very frustrating because I spent a lot of time with that project. But my youngest granddaughter is getting married, so -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: So. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- I'm flying out CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's an opportunity then. Can we add a few more things to the agenda? Thank you for letting us know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You don't lookthat old. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, thank you, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that does take us to the Planning Commission absences. Now, you all had been polled about the August 3 I st, and I've already let Troy know. The 3l st is off. We no longer need it, so we will not be in this room on the 3lst. So your attendance, then, obviously, is not needed. How many know if they cannot make it on the lth? I already know Diane can't. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll still have a quorum. Plus we have two other members who most likely will be able to be here. The next meeting after that, and we do have items scheduled for ig is September 2lst. So just keep that in mind. And on the 7th I'll poll everybody to make sure when have a quorum. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will be there on the 2lst. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Approval of minutes; anybody -- I don't believe there were any -- yeah, there weren't any minutes attached to it this time, so we're good. And that takes us to the BCC reports and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not hold a meeting in August. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Chairman's report; I don't have anything today. ***And we'll move directly into -- oh, and there's no consent items left over from last meeting, so we will move directly into our first advertised public hearing. It's 9,{. It's PL20170000007. That's for the Briarwood PUD located on the east side of Livingston Road north of Radio Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court repofter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures, way over on Tom. MR. EASTMAN: I received several letters and emails from the community that are incorporated in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, what he said, and then a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Quite a few emails that I received, and I also spoke with staffand Mr. Mulhere. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And from my part, I have received a lot of emails. I've sent them all to the planner. They're part of public record. I've also reviewed the audio for the NIM. And there was other meetings held. They weren't official NIMs, but they were presentations to some of the neighborhoods. I attended one ofthose early on to understand this project. When it was ftrst presented to me by citizens in the area, it was presented as an affordable housing project. I soon learned that was not the case. And I'll ask the applicant to expand on that when we get into the meeting. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. Page 4 of 49 August 17,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Lots of emails and letters; all public record. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh. And I did have conversations with at least one of the Board of County Commissioners. I think it was Ms. Taylor. With that, Bob, as you make your presentation -- there's been a lot of information, and I was approached early on with some information. It turns out to be misinformation. It was concerning the nature of how this operation -- how your proposal was going to operate. And I looked at everything you've provided thoroughly. I didn't see any reference to affordable housing in there. So I would like, as part ofyour presentation, to discuss that aspect ofthe project. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can start right offthe bat. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes. There is no proposal here -- this is a market-rated project. There's no proposal for any affiordable housing. It hasn't been reviewed for that. It wasn't submitted. It's never had that as an element of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: With me this morning, my client Brett Boyd, sitting right there; Rich Yovanovich, he's the land use attomey; also have Terry Cole with Hole Montes, who's the civil engineer. Actually, he is not working on the desigrr of this projecl but he's up to speed, because that civil engineer is out of town. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, for disclosure, I did meet with you and I think Richard and the applicant - MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- earlier this week on these for a pre-meeting. MR. MULHERE: And also Norm Trebilcock, who is our traffic engineer and planner. You have -- I think Mike put the aerial up there; Mike Bosi. It sort of shows the general area. It doesn't show the entire PUD which actually runs a little bit further to the north. But the sub -- this is new. Every time - I just figured out how to use the old one; we've got a new one here, so -- and, Rich, do you want to -- can someone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the orientation actually may work better, huh? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. That's good. It's pretty dark, but there we go. It's really not much different than what was on the screen, but - is that on? Yes. So this is the - CHAIRMAN STRAN: You might just want to slide that up a little bit. We can't -- the bottom's cut off. Thereyou go. Thankyou. MR. MULHERE: This is the subject property right here that's a 15.99-acre parcel within the Briarwood PUD, and this is the multifamily project within the PUD that's most close -- our closest neighbor, Dover Parc, and this is the recreational facility here. This is a little preserve right here. Just for getting it on the record, that is - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to pick that mike up closer to you there, Bob. MR. MULI{ERE: That's the zoning map. Briarwood is here, Maplewood is here, and they both extend a little -- excuse me. They both extend a little bit further to the north. The commercial tract -- as I know you're aware because you had another petition some time ago, the commercial tract allows -- it's 15.99 acres. It's undeveloped, and it allows for a whole list of commercial uses, including shopping center, retail, restaurant. And presently it's owned by Lowe's Corporation. It would allow that type of home improvement store as well. I believe there was actually an SDP approved years ago for a Lowe's home improvement store. The square footage that's allowed on that -- on those commercial tracts in the PUD is limited to 20 percent of the commercial area. If you do the math on that, that translates to a maximum square footage of 139,305 square feet. That PUD also allows for up to 600 dwelling units, most of which have been constucted. Nearly all of those have been constructed north of this property within the PUD. We had quite a bit of public outreach. I know in your packet there is the summary minutes from the Page 5 of49 August ll,20ll NIM that we held on May 16th. We had very good attendance at that. There were a lot of great questions asked. But even prior to that, my client held two, solt of, town hall meetings, and so we had a fair amount of public outreach for this. But in addition to those two -- three meetings, the informal town hall meetings and the formal NIM, we also have -- I personally have spoke to a number of the residents over the telephone after the advertisement went out and they were notified of the hearing. And even before that, after some of these meetings, residents reached out; particularly, they were residents in Dover Parc. They're the closest to it and the most affected. I know my client also spoke to a number of the residents. Let me put on the conceptual site plan. One of the issues -- one of the issues that I heard from folks that called me with concems and also heard expressed numerous times was the question about having an interconnection between this project and the remainder of the Briarwood PUD. And we never proposed to have an interconnection. This PUD is already interconnected fuither to the north with some RSF3 zoned properties that function as part of the PUD, though they're not zoned PUD. I just wanted to point out there's two access points to this tract separate and apafi from the access points to the remainder of the Briarwood PUD. One is here on Radio Road. These are already improved. They were paid for by the then owner of the properry while the Radio Road and Livingston Roads were improved. So the turn lanes are in. The access points are in. One is here, and one is right here. There is an existing roadway right here called Skelly Road - I think that says Shelly Road, but it's Skelly Road -- that sort of ends in a cul-de-sac right here. And we do not intend to actually make that interconnection. We would basically have landscaping and a wall here, so that roadway would stop right here shoft ofour project. We do intend to have gates in this community here, here, and here so that there is some parking that's available here outside of the gates. But once you enter into the community, you would have to go through these gates. Part ofthe discussion about the interconnection - about the interconnection and the recreational facilities -- because that was part of the discussion, too. At the neighborhood information meeting the issue was raised about whether or not -- if this was developed as residential, there was a legal ability for my client and the future residents of this project both to have vehicular access to the remainder of Briarwood and also to use their recreational facilities. And while we never intended to do that - and I believe we clearly stated that several times at that meeting -- it was requested that we do the research. Mr. Yovanovich did that research. There was a legal ability to access their recreational facilities and their roads; however, we do not intend to do that, and we would be happy with the condition or stipulation that says that we will not do that. Moving beyond that, there is also recorded instuments that require my client to pay a fair share contribution for the costs of those recreational facilities. And although we will not use those -- well, one, I don't think we could actually change that requirement and, two, we've already agreed that we would make that fair share contribution. So hopefully that answers some of the questions that I know people have. Let's talk about stormwater. You can see on the conceptual site plan there is a lake there. This projecl the Briarwood PUD, has an overall stormwater management plan that was approved. This project is included in that overall stormwater management plan, as you would expect. This lake will be connected to the other lakes in the overall stormwater management plan. It will provide for some additional water quality and storage capaciSr. And, obviously, with respect to the question of stormwater management and the costs of maintaining that moving forward in the future, we will have to also contribute our fair share cost for those improvements to this master stormwater management plan, and we assume that would be on a pro rata share based on acreage. We did request one deviation which staffhas recommended approval for. I'll put that on the -- I want to just point out something about the site planning. As we had discussions with the folks that live in the condominium which is closest to us -- and if you look at the aerial, I want to point out that, basically, from this, sort of, Skelly Road here, moving towards Livingston, this is a preserve here. This is a recreational facility, and so there's quite a bit of -- there's no residential structures there and quite a bit of vegetation in this Page 6 of 49 August 17,2011 area. But these residential structures do exist close to our property moving this way. Here is a lake. They don't -- obviously there's no residential structures there; but right in here. So in preparing the site plan and discussing the desires of the neighbors, we had several iterations of this site plan -- four or five -- and we moved these structures and these parking structures and this parking. We kind of condensed it and moved it so that we could have a substantial buffer areq particularly where we're adjacent to those residential condominium structures. As I said, when you get up into this area it nrurows down, but it's wider here, wider here, and wider here. And that was in order to provide for the -- at the request of those residents. They have a pretly tall hedge. And beyond the hedge they wanted to be able to access it for maintenance. So we've agreed to retain an 8- to 1 0-foot clear area there and put our landscape buffer on the other side ofthat. So this is anywhere fiom a minimum of 15, probably closer to 20 feet. And as a result - I also wanted to point out that there are some easements along Livingston and also along Radio that are a right-of-way easement, provides for the turn lanes, and then there's a slope easemen! a l0-foot slope easement. And as a result of squeezing this, we requested a deviation from the required Type D landscape buffer along the two arterial roadways so that we could provide more landscaping over here. And I'll put that on the visualizer. I have to go a little smaller. That's probably good enough. You won't be able to read the text. Maybe a little bigger. I'm sorry, Ray. Oh, Fred, sorry. Ray's over there. Got a long arm, Ray. Okay. So this width of the easement varies. Here's your l0-foot county road or slope easement and this is this 1O-foot enhanced Type D buffer. We did work with Mark Templeton to identifu a palette of plants that are larger and more plants, and also we'd be putting in a decorative fence in there. And I have an exhibit in a few minutes lll show you that depicts that or something similar to that. So staffdid recommend approval for that deviation. That's 1O-foot wide with all the -- actually far more than the required plantings at different levels; canopy trees, midstory, and then, of course, the hedges that are required. I wanted to talk just a minute about we do obviously have a finding from staffthat we are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. So let's focus on density calculations for a minute, because we are requesting 320 units. This PUD is209.17 acres in size. So this is Option 1 for calculating the density. If you -- the PUD is eligible for five dwelling units per acre and that's based on the Comprehensive Planning staffs evaluation; a base of four plus a bonus unit for the access to the two arterial roadways. If you do that math, that times 209.17 acres is 1,046 units. The PUD was approved for 600, and so that leaves available 446 dwelling units. We are requestin9320. The PUD was originally approved on the 209.17 acres. You subtract out the 15.99-acre commercial tract and you base the PUD's per-acre density on the remaining 193.1 8 as is prescribed by our Land Development Code as a method for calculating density, you come up with a density of 3 .12 dwelling units per acre. When you add in what we are requesting, that density increases to 4.4 dwelling units per acre on a gross. There is another way you could calculate density that we're eligible for. We don't need it. It's just informational. This 16-acre trac! 15.99 tract, is eligible for a bonus for conversion from commercial to residential because it's not within an activity center, and that 16 units per acre, you could actually realize 1,222 dwelling units. The rest of the math doesn't change. We really don't need that. It's just for informational purposes. The first option is the one that I think really matters. Now, I wanted to talk a little bit about the - what this project would look like. And at the conclusion of my comments -- which I'm getting close to the end - is my client will come up and talk a little bit about the actual operational and unit sizes and marketing that he's done. He's got a lot of good information. Id rather have him make that brief presentation to you, because I think he's got that information really in his head more so than I do. So I think that the project that is the closest by comparison to this that probably you're all familiar with would be the Orchid Run project. You know, for me -- I don't know if everyone agrees, but I think it PageT of49 August 17,2011 was very well done. It's a very attractive project. It's on the intersection of two six-lane roadways, just as this project is. That project is about 22 acres in size, but about six acres ofthat - about four and change are in the FP&L easement and another 1.8 acres are actually in the canal easement, the Golden Gate Canal easement. When you look at the net of what's developable, it's a little bit over 15 acres in size. Our project is 15.99 acres in size. So, again, they're very similar. They have two and four-story buildings in there. We're proposing three- and four-story buildings. Again, very similar. The net density on that project if you look atthat 15-and-change acres, is l9 units per acre. We're proposing 20 units per acre. So, yes, a little bit more, but not much more, and very similar. I wanted to show you some photographs of that project because ours will be very similar to that. This also shows the landscape buffer, although ours is enhanced beyond what you see there from a planting perspective, as we agreed to with the deviation. That sort of decorative fence, although it may not be exactly that way, that gives you an idea of what we're proposing for sort of an aluminum or metal decorative fence. Also, with the canopy trees, there will be canopy trees, midstory trees, and then double hedge row. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Bob, since you're showing that photograph, and before we pass it, just so the Planning Commission's clear, that's a -- looks like a wider buffer than what you're asking for. MR. MULHERE: It is, but you can also see that a portion of it is turf. And I think in here this is about I 0 feet. I walked it. I couldn't attest to it, but it's about 10 feet in width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a porlion on the backside, too. MR. MULHERE: Yes; a little big yes. By the way, what I didn't point out -- and I'm glad you asked that question - is that that slope easement, that's 10 feet wide, you know, will remain as it is today. It won't be part of our landscape buffer but, you know, it functions the same way as the turf area here does. This is another example. And you can see the buildings in the back, parking in the front and, of course, the landscape buffer there. And here's, I think, another example right here. You see that four-story building. So, just in conclusion, obviously we have a team here that can illswer any of your questions if I haven't answered them. And I'm going to ask Brett to come up here in one minute, but I just wanted to point out some summary kind ofthoughts. I think you all know that the county has a significant shortage of rental housing, market rate rental housing -- it's in the thousands of units - and that market rates are -- rental rates are very high. And I think there's two ways, potential ways that I know of, that you can address that and maybe one is a combination, so maybe there's three ways. You can subsidize rental housing, or you can increase the supply. It's simple supply and demand. If you increase the supply, you will reduce the cost of those units. There are a significant amount of -- number of units that have been approved and maybe are either under construction or will be soon. I heard a number of approximately 2,000 including this project. That doesn't even meet the projected shortage. So when you think about economic development, when you think about trying to attract employees, what better location than a location that's in the heart at the urban area. Really, when you look at that aerial, this is almost an infill parcel. It's surrounded by development. Across the street is the Wawa store. Across the way the other way is Foxfire to the south, plus their golf maintenance shed. We've taken pains to create a relationship with our closest neighbors that addresses their concems, and so this is a really good location. Staffhas reviewed this project and recommended approval. We know that this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and we know that this will be an excellent project, very well done, very, very high-end and very similar to in sort of the quality of a project that you can look at that's already been developed that's very attractive. And we sort of looked at that when we began to design this and tried to model this in many ways similar. Not exactly the same. Not the same architecture, but very similar to that. So with that, I'm going to ask Brett to come up and talk a little bit about - I know I heard some questions about sizes and rents and so forth, so I'm going to let him speak to those issue. Page 8 of49 August 17,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Can I ask you a question first? MR. MULHERE: Yes; sure, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there any way at all to make sure that these apartments are rented by county staffor fire, police? Any way like that to make sure of that? MR. MULIIERE: Well, I think there's different demands. I want -- I think that's something that Brett's going to get into and then we'll come -- I think if you would give us a little leeway, we'll answer that question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But the reason I say that is there's also a -- there's also a demand, for example, for a ceriain segment of senior housing. And so -- you're talking about some; you're not talking about all. And I think we can address that question, but... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I'm talking about all; not some. MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. All right. I guess that willteach me to put words in your mouth, huh? Yeah. MR. BOYD: Good morning. For the record, Brett Boyd, Boyd Land Development. I'm the applicant for this project. It's nice to be here this morning. Nice to have all the residents here as well, and I'm hoping to at least communicate some of their concerns and issues that have come up over this process. Communication was very important on -- as far as one of my goals early on, so that's why we had two town hall meetings before the NIM. Anyhing that came up with the neighbors subsequent to that, I have encouraged myself to come to meetings to address any specific letters, and I tried to be very responsive to that. Obviously, I can't present a project today that's going to address everybody's concems, but I'm hoping to make modifications and try to be a good neighbor. One of the f,rst things that we did, as you ciur see in the site plan, a lot of buildings are pushed up near the right-of-way. And what I did early on - this is probably the 2l st site plan iteration. Initially I had buildings closer to Dover Parc, and one of the first things we did, obviously, is try to address those concems and push the buildings further away from the existing residents and to address their concerns about bufFering and walls and landscaping, things like that. So that was a priority for me and our team as far as communicating with the neighbors. Obviously, I can't make everybody huppy, but I'm hoping to at least present today a good quality project for Briarwood and Collier County. As far as what we've tried to design, we've got -- I don't know if we can show that, Bob; the elevation boards. The design style is called plan Spanish Colonial Revival, whatever that means. It's, I'm told, a Santa Barbara look, and it's an all concrete construction. So it's all concrete including the floors between the units. It's a plank construction and concrete block. And so - and we have barrel tile roofs. We're trying to be somewhat of a green type of project. We're looking at incorporating some of that Solarcity tesla roofing systems. We're looking at adding some solar panels that could make us a little bit more green. We're putting electric vehicle charging stations in the garages and some other charging stations outside of the garages as well. So we're, again, trying to have something that's attractive and that would be an access for the neighbors. And we're not looking to diminish prope(y values. We're looking to increase properly values in the neighborhood. That's my goal. Some of the concems that I heard a lot of is traffic. I understand it. I live in the same district as you all do. I deal with the same traffic. The positive here with multifamily is that we do have a reduced amount of traffic, and I'll let Norm talk to that a little bit, but we're less than half as much traffrc as a shopping center. Primarily our access will be offof Livingston Road. And you can see the site plan there. That's the primary access. That's where the clubhouse is. We do have a secondary access for Radio Road as well. And to follow up on a comment that Bob made that I just want to make sure there's clarity, because Page 9 of49 August 17,2017 we still get questions about it; the recreational facilities, this is something that we want absolutely nothing to do -- we're willing to make it part of the record that we have no legal access to your -- or when I say "legal access," we have -- that we would make it a record that we would not have access to your recreational facilities, period. That still means that I do pay for it though. I'm going to pay my pro rata share of your recreational facilities but I don't get to use it. What we have proposed here in our application is I've got a budget of about $2.6 million in our pool, the pool deck are4 the fitness center, the clubhouse. So we're trying to make a premier type of project for our own tenants that they're going to use. And they have no rights to -- in our leases it will say that. They have no rights to access your recreational facilities. Also, we have -- right now we do have the right for access into Briarwood but, again, we're willing to make that a condition of our application that we will not have any access through Briarwood. We have a standalone project here, but we want to be good neighbors, and I think there's a way to make this work where we can make our financial contributions to Briarwood and your recreational facilities but we don't use them. Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about tenant mix. We've done a lot of studies to see who our tenants aregoingtobeatthisproject. Inuptoage29,it'saboutl5to20percent,uptoage39isanother20to22 percent, and a majority is 40 and over. So there will be some young professionals, but there's also folks that are my age, 55 and above, that are looking for a nice quality development with a lot of amenities that would like to live the Naples experience. Our average unit sizes, which are very important that I want to communicate today to the neighbors -- our average square footage is about a little over a thousand square feet; 1,047 square feet. Our rents range anywhere from $1,400 to $2,000 a month. Our leases are -- the only leases that -- when we lease up the project we're looking for one-year leases or even longer. The reason for that - and I think you can appreciate that for some of you who rent out units there in Briarwood -- it costs money to turn over your renters. So we're looking to try to make a good quality product for our development and for folks to keep leasing, the same tenants, because it costs money. So if you have shorter leases, you're going to have time where that unit -- it takes time to lease that unit out to market. And that's a cost of doing business. So we are -- our lease up is one year leases. You can do something shorter than that but you pay a premium for it. And I think you can see, even on -- looking at the information on the website for Orchid Run up the street, you pay a 30, 40 percent premium if you do something less than a one-year lease. So there's a penalty to do something shorter. So, again, at our price point and our square footage, we're a different market than those of you who have investments in Briarwood. Ard I know there's a number of people in Briarwood that are renting their units, and that's an important issue for them. But, overall, we're trying to do a nice, quality development. We're trying to be responsive to your suggestions and your comments, and we hope to be an asset and improve the immediate market area. Thank you very much. Oh, let me - Rich would like me to give you a little bit more detail on the square footage sizes. The smallest units are 756 square feet. There's 54 of them. And I can, again, send an email out to anchor to send them on to all of you. First of all, let me just give you a broad scope. One-bedrooms is 44 percent of the total, two-bedrooms are 48 percent, and three-bedrooms are 8 percent. The square footages, the one-bedrooms range from 756 square feet up to790 square feet the two-bedrooms range from 1 ,122 square feet up to -- there's a few large ones at 1,600 square feet. There's just a few of those; and then three-bedrooms are about 1,400 square feet. So that gives you a little bit of a feel of the breakdown. So I'd be happy to address any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- and I'm assuming you're - do you have more presentation, or do you want questions now? Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to address just a couple of comments. When Bob spoke about the water management system, it's a master water management system for Briarwood. The way the documents are currently written, this parcel would not be required to pay any propoftionate share towards what maintenance of the water management system. Page 10 of49 August 17,2017 My client has said they're willing to pay their proportionate share, which is currently a financial obligation it doesn't have under the documents. So I just wanted to make that clear that they are agreeing to incur some additional expenses that they're not currently required to do. And regarding kind of the history of where my letter came from is we were at a neighborhood information meeting, and a lot of people were questioning my client when he said he had the right to use the recreational facilities under their documents but he did not intend to use those facilities. Since I have real estate partners, I had not read the documents myself. I said, let me go back. Let me read all the documents. Ill send you a letter explaining all of the rights that currently exist under those documents. So that's where that letter came from. It was no way intended - and some people said in their meetings that we're trying to bully them into using their facilities or using their roads. It was purely an informational: This is what the documents currently provide. We're giving up the right to use the recreational facilities. We're not going to interconnect our project with your roadways. So that was just letting you know what's out there that what we're -- and what we're willing to make sure we're not impacting your community. That was the purpose of that letter; explaining what the legal documents say. I know Ms. Kraus, who wrote their declaration. Whatever she wants us to record on the propefty to assure everything we're saying to you right now regarding not using the recreational facilities, et cetera, she can draft it, we'll review it to make sure it makes everybody in Briarwood comfortable, that we're codifuing what we're saying. And I just wanted to briefly talk about kind of where my letter came from, the history of that letter, and it was just simply explaining what's in the recorded documents right now. And with that, I think we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding anything to do with the project. Oh, one other thing. This is -- I wanted to -- Mr. Boyd intends to spend approximately $60 million to build this project; 60, six zero. When you divide that by 320 units, that's $ I 88,000 per-unit investment. This is not going to be anything that in any way negatively impacts that community. That's a significant investment in just the infrastructure as well as the building cost. So this is no way, in any way, going to harm the property values in that community and, frankly, we believe it's going to enhance the property values in that area. With that, I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, and then Diane COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Back to where I was before. I keep seeing articles on the news and the newspapers about how the local police and f,ne and everybody lives up in Fort Myers because they can't afford to live down here, and I keep seeing the excuse that we need to build more apartrnents down here so that these people don't have to go to Fort Myers. But is there legally any way to make sure that a certain -- I said "all." You know, I was halfjoking, but maybe not. Is there any way to make sure that a goodly percentage of these units that you're going to build actually do get rented by local first responders, or however you want to word it, people that work at the hospital, you know, like that? Is there any legal way to do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: What we have done on other similar market-rate projects is we committed with the initial advertising, and as units become available, that we would let the school system know, Mr. Eastman know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I forgot about them; yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: School system. We would letthe Sheriffs Office - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Teachers. MR. YOVANOVICH: - everybody know that you know, we're gefting ready to come online, so they would obviously know about it and have the opportunity to come in. And assuming they qualifo, you know, have good credit, they could obviously use it. And we've also agreed in other instances when a unit comes up -- because usually there's about a 60-day notice period, you know, when you're not going to renew your lease. Again, we would provide information to the county, the Sheriffs Office, the school system. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not the point. These people are lower paid than -- Page 11 of49 August 17,2011 CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, let me tell you something that maybe this board, collectively, has not been aware of. In the last year, year and a half, the following projects have been in process or approved for apartments: We have Santa Barbara and Davis, 320;we have Ave Maria for 264; we have Lely on the Rattlesnake for 304; we have Milano Lakes that's under construction for 2961.we have Manatee and 951 for 483 units; we have Isles of Collier for 340; and now we're adding, potentially, Briarwood at320. That brings 2,326 tnits just in seven larger projects already hitting the books, more or less, for the past year. Now, I think that's a wide variety of projects to pick from for anybody of any caliber that would want to live in those, and I'm just telling you that, as a part, maybe in response to your question about why aren't we singling out different categories of people to be in certain apartments. That's -- I mean, that's social engineering, but that's your call. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can these people affiord to rent in any of those projects? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, I would suggest that the Lely one, possibly - Milano Lakes for sure, maybe Ave Maria, the Manatee Road and 951. These are all apartment complexes that are in areas I would think with - and with features that appear generally on the applications that don't have the features this particular project has in regards to comparison up the street to Orchid Run. I'm just telling you there's a lot of aparlments coming on the last year that have been in process in Collier County that most of the public is not aware of. They're just -- because they're in the backroom. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So all this stuffI'm hearing about people have to live up in Fort Myers ard commute down here from Naples (sic) - people that work this Naples and all that's just not true? CHAIRMAN STRAN: There's not one of the projects I just told you about thafs built. They're all either in process or either under construction. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I can't tell you what's going to happen when these open up. And I know there's dif[erent ranges. For example, down in the Manatee Road and 951, they're looking at a sizable project down there, and if that goes -- it's in for - they either had a pre-app or maybe a preliminary SDP. If a project like that goes, it's substantial in size, and it's an area that would probably look at less expensive units ifthat's what your goal is. So I'm just providing that information as an offset to what we're talking about today, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I appreciate that. That is what I was asking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any other questions at this time? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, just one little comment. That cul-de-sac that you're not going to use that comes out of their project, you're going to have to get onto their land because they're not going to be able to leave just a dead-end road there, so you're going to need their permission to get on their land and change that, unless they won't give you the permission and leave a dead-end, something like that. You know that, right? MR. MULFDRE: Yes; thankyou. COMMIS SIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MULI{ERE: And we have had those conversations. There's even been preliminary design of a hammerhead or a small circle. Obviously, it's not our property. They'll have to give us permission, but we could - you know, we could certainly construct that or fix that as part of the process. And that's the discussions we've had with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I just had one quick thing for Rich. On your July 26th letter, Rich, I did go through that, so I can understand where the people had a problem, and I just figured you were going to write strong letter to follow. So I'm glad you clarified that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's presentation? Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I do. And for those that don't know, I'm a realtor here in Naples, Florida; l5-year resident. My question kind of stems from some things that have already been brought up. When I - I don't do Page 12 of 49 August 17 ,2017 rentals in my business, but when I put my ear to the ground in the market, and I just go on my phone and just Google "apartments for rent in Naples," and I'm talking about just in the surrounding are4 not out there like Ave Maria - a lot of friends are Collier County sheriffs, they're teachers, et cetera, that are struggling. I see -- I just typed in on my phone while you were talking, and 1,200 apartments came up for rent in this are4 including communities that we've mentioned, like Orchid Run, et cetera, all in the same kind of price range, rental range of that 1,400 to over 2,000 per month deal. I guess I'm struggling with is there really a need when I know a ton of -- lots of homeowners that are here seasonally, the only way they can afford to have their place here in paradise is by being able to rent that out potentially throughout the year. When we add more apartments, my personal opinion is, I don't see that being super aflordable at $24,000 a year just in rent for an apartment when, potentially, a $350,000 house I could buy and pay HOA and taxes and pay less than that per month. So I think the challenge is not we need more rental apartments. I think the challenge is why people are driving from Lee County is because up there they can rent a lot of things for under $1,000 a month, or at least more than from what I've been told and what I see Collier County can offer. The issue's not the number of apartments. I think, based on what Im hearing, these upcoming apartment complexes, the issue is who can afford -- what teacher, what cop, a starting salary, especially with a family, potentially, can afford to live in a two-bedroom apartment and pay $2,000 a month, 24 grand a year? And I'm not really speaking, per se, to this project; jus! in general, an observation that I think we're going to run into some problems. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a couple things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: One, the market demand is clearly there. I know you Googled and you came up with 1,200 apartments. I don't know if they're all vacant right now or not vacant right now, but I could tell you I get a fair number of calls about land development and land development opportunities, and I get more calls in the last couple years about where are there apartment sites that are properly zoned and ready to go because everybody else is at a96 or above percent rental; a lot of demand. When we did Mr. Torres'project out on Collier Boulevard, Vicki Tracy came here and said she's got a big CCRC that she's doing in l,ely Resort. And she says, you know, I've got no place for my people. You guys need to be building these apartments as quick as you can because we don't have a stock of apartments for people that want to come and work here and live here. So are we going to meet every need through this project? No project can meet every need through this (sic) project. And I'm not saying there isn't a need for some apartments at a much lower rate. I will tell you that people like me, people like Bob, when we try to bring those types of projects forward, we're not well received in trying to do that. So although we recognize a need in that are4 and maybe we could find other locations to make that need, it's not always a popular thing to get through and bring forward. This project, I guarantee you Mr. Boyd wouldn't be putting at risk $60 million if there wasn't a demand for this project. And I guarantee you there are still unmet demand even after aLlr2,300 of those units, if they all get built, come online. We have worked closely with the county and the school district and others to make sure that people know about these units. A lot of sheriffs deputies and firefighters, they're two-income families, and they can easily - you know, they're both working. They can easily afford the rent. And, you know, frankly, a lot of people don't want to own a home anymore. There's a lot of people who just - although maybe I can -- the home ownership deal is not of interest to them. They would rather rent for a while and figure out where they want to live or maybe never buy a place. So we're not -- there's a demand, and we're going to -- we're going to meet that - help meet that demand. And I agree, Mr. Dearbom, with everything you said about maybe finding other locations to bring the rents down or other options, but I can't solve all those problems with this one. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So just for clarification - and I thank you, Richard. Page 13 of49 August 17,2011 I wasn't -- I wasn't getting up here to make a statement in affordable apartments. What I was saying is when I Google apaftments for rent in Naples and 1,200 came up just now all in that same kind of price range, those are available units right now available for rent. I'm not going to challenge the fact tha! you know, November, December through March, April, May there's a higher demand for people wanting to be down here. But you're talking about doing annual rentals. I just question, is there a need for that many apartments at that price point. I understand it is what it is. If you pay $60 million, you're going to have to charge rent to get that money back. I'm not challenging that. I'm just challenging the issue that was brought up earlier. I think no matter what you do when you build this project, people are still going to have to drive from Lee County if they're a waiter, if they're a busboy, they work the valet at a hotel; they're going to squeeze in two or three people to help afford those rents, and they're most likely going to continue to be driving down from Lee County. I don't see those kind of people that are - really there's a need for being able to be your clients in this type project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's not our market. Our market is the young professional that's coming to Collier County, young professionals that live in Collier County, younger families that want to stay in Collier County. Our market is not the -- you know, the busboys, the waiters. This project's not geared to serve that group of people. It's geared to serve a totally different marketplace. And that's, you know, I don't know -- MR. MULHERE: Forthe record, Bob Mulhere. If I could just add, you know, the county is engaged right now into a substantial housing analysis, and I actually was at a Chamber public policy meeting last week, and Cormac Giblin was there, and he gave a little presentation. One ofthe things I thought was interesting that I think is, in par! a response to your question, and Stan's as well, is that the county is actually looking at all of their -- the staffat this point. I don't know that it's gotten up to the Board level. The direction to look at it came from the Board. They're looking at surplus properties that they have, and I think they've narrowed down to four or five sites that might make sense for housing oppoftunities. The other thing that Rich said that I just wanted to add to is I have a bunch of clients that call me, and they're looking for apartment sites. I just had one who that's all they do in Florida is build rental apartments, and they seriously looked at a site they had a little due diligence contract for. They decided not to take it down. But the first thing that I did as part of that due diligence -- the frst thing that I looked at was, you know, what is around this project? Because what is the reality if you're going to inves! you know, several hundred thousand dollars in going through this process of you being successful? And this particular site, I thought, had a pretty good chance. But that's part of the process. You have to look at what's surrounding the property. You have to look at what makes sense and -- in terms of density, in terms of the neighbors. But we do need more; we need more. And I think these, 2,000,2,300 units that are coming on board, these market-rate rental units will effectively reduce that rental price. It's going to take a year or year and a half to get them on. But I don't know that that meets all the demand, but I do think that will effectively reduce that rent because it's supply and demand. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, what is the starting point of your rental? I forgot what you had earlier said. You talked a couple times about it. What is your starting point? MR. BOYD: The starting point is $1,340 a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just let that -- leave that there for a minute and let me talk to this panel about something. The Housing Department's currently working on a more, let's say, accurate way of determining affordable housing in Collier County both as definition and as count. ln that regard, currently like we have today, there are five or so levels of affordable housing. There's extremely low income, very low income, low income, moderate/workforce housing, and gap income. Page 14 of 49 August 17,2017 Now, the top two is what we generally hear talked about when we want to talk about nurses and firefighters and people like that; workforce income and gap income. Now, if you take those under the new demand model that's being put together by the Housing Department, you will find that the low level, which is below the workforce, that's based on the AMI, average median income, and a multiplier, is $1,256 a month. That's for low. So if he's at 13 something right now, he's definitely in that modern - that moderate income level that you started talking about when you were aiming for the firefighters and police officers and things like that. So I just wanted to make that - put that on the record, because our new analysis that hopefully will be coming out from the Housing Department soon reflects the accuracy in determining these by the AMI and the number of units we currently have in the county both in the market rate as well as the approved section of the county. And you'll see all new numbers, and I'm hoping we'll have a -- when that's approved by the Board or as it goes through its process, I hope this panel gets to participate in that, because it will be a big factor in how we look at some of these projects. But I just wanted you to know that for the record. MR. BOYD: You covered what I was going to say, so... CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well,I didn't knowthat, butthank you. That was coincidental. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: One thing, too. And I understand everything you're saying. When we offer -- we talk about starting prices. I've run down to car dealerships because I saw an ad on TV where a brand new car is starting at 79,995, and every time I get there, that car costs me $26,000 because the one car that was 19,995 that I can afford or the 199 a month, for some reason I walk out of there I'm at 307. So I mean, that's just -- I understand there's a starting price, and I'm not challenging you or comparing you to a car dealership at all, sir. I'm just saying that the starting price means the average, based on what you told me, of 1,400 to 2,000, I bet you that average on the ones I'm seeing online in the area tend to run around 1,600 to 2,000 amonth, and I'm curious where that number falls on your scale. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't have -- I can tell you that the low is as far as it's shown on the demand table at this time, and it shows 1,265,1believe; that's for low. So each gap, if you start at very low, medium low, and then that, there's about a 3 to $500 differential between each one of gaps. So even if you take the Iower differential of 300, you're over 1,500 a month. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and, by the way, if anybody heard what he said, when he goes in to buy a car, he always goes out spending more money than he wants to; he's not a good negotiator, so you may want to buy a house from him. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Next time take me with you. I'll get you your car. MR. BOYD: One followup. Very good point as far as the analogy with the cars. But 44 percent of the project is one-bedroom, and all of them are under $1,400 a month; all of them. So that's what it is. And up the street we -- right now, let's see, just up the street, there, just to give you all a feel for when you are in the business I'm in, you look at the rent per square foot, and maybe some of you all do that when you rent your houses out in Briarwood. But, overall, nationwide, $1.40 a square foot is a good, healthy development across the country. My project is $1.60 a square foot. Right now if you tried to rent anything at Orchid Run, it's $1.78 a foot. Now, we're trying to be comparable with amenities, but we know when there's more supply the rent's going to fall a little bit, so we're anticipating that. But I just wanted to let you know all of our one-bedrooms are under 1,400 amonth. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel ofthe presenter and any oftheir people? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the longest part of this questioning will probably be what I'm going to go into next. So just so you know, for the members of the public, at l0:30 we will be taking a Page 15 of49 August l7 ,2017 l5-minute break for the court reporter; at 12 o'clock we will be taking a one-hour break for lunch. We have other cases today, so we'll be coming back, or other issues today, after lunch, most likely. But I wanted you to know that as we get close to those times, we'll be stopping and then recontinuing when we get back. So, with that when I met with you yesterday or day before, whatever day it was, Bob, I had walked through some suggested concerns I had over the Development Standards Table, over some languages, and also the request that -- and I would like to ask staffto consider this from now on. When we get a PUD that has sections of it, a good number of the sections -- and I think this is the majority -- rewrifien, it doesn't makes sense to leave the first three unattached or un-rewritten. It makes it actually very confusing for staffin the future. So I'd rather see a complete strikethrough version of the PUD provided when they're this encompassing. There was a lot of changes to this. Now, I understand it didn't start that way, but as they got into more and more things came out of it. And Bob has agreed that, by consent, he'll provide a full and complete package that will have a complete rewrite and strikethrough. MR. MULHERE: The entire PUD with all the strikethroughs and underlines so you can see it from the beginning to the end, which we would have been happy to do. Ray and I talked, and we're going to look at that process, too, so that we address your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your buffering, in your master plan you call out for a l0-foot Type A buffer along the inside buffer, the ones that do not front the roadway system. I was surprised to see that because Type A doesn't require a wall. The NIM did say you're going to have a 6-foot wall. Some information I've seen this moming, I think I saw the reference for an 8-foot wall. So what is the Type A buffer actually going to be? I understand it's going to be enhanced because that's paft of the reason you need the reduction along the two road fronts. What are the enhancements? And I need to understand for the record what that involves. MR. MULHERE: Our intent was service for a 6-foot wall. There probably will be some -- there may be some elevation at the property line for that wall to sit on, but I don't know that we intended to achieve 8-foot. Cerlainly a 6-foot wall. But that, you know -- let me just show you this cross-section here. So this is a hedge on the Dover Parc properly. This is the propefty line right here. This is -- I made reference to this, but a picture's worth a thousand words. So this is an 8- to 10-foot-wide clear area between our property line and the proposed wall, which would have landscaping on both sides, vines, and then our required landscape buffer would be on our side of the wall. And this is at the request of the Dover Parc residents that we've met with because they wanted to be able to access and take care of their -- you know, their landscaping that's here. And so we're pushing the wall further away, which also has the effect of reducing the visibility, from their perspective. into our project. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, before you go, this - was this included in our packet? MR. MULI{ERE: No. We just - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's why it's not familiar. MR. MULHERE: We actually just, in the last maybe week ortwo, came up with some sort of final designs on this. It certainly could be. As you can see, when we prepared this, I labeled it Exhibit ,{3 in case that was something that the Planning Commission wished to have as a exhibit. And I recognize staffwill have to look at this, and we could do that between now and consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking. I vaguely remember some of our buffers -- and because this wasn't in a packet I didn't check this out ahead of time. Some of our buffers require plantings on both sides of the wall. This one shows it on one. Are you asking -- that needs to be verified by our staff because if it is supposed to be on both sides of the wall, you will either need a deviation or you'll need to show the landscaping. MR. MULHERE: Well - and with eight to l0 feet there, if we need to put some landscaping on that side of the wall, I think we could do it and still have plenty of room for clear areas. So we will get with staff to finalize this. Page 16 of49 August 11,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any time you use the word "enhanced," you need to draw a parallel to what is existing versus what's enhanced in a table format so we can say, okay, you should have had calipers and heights of this nature. Now you're putting in ones of this nature; that's why it's enhanced. And I think you -- MR. MULI{ERE: I'll -- I can provide you - with respect to the buffer along the right-of-way, it's enhanced. I'll provide you with a list of those enhancements. This one, I would call it a different buffer. I don't know that I'd call it enhanced. It's wider, but, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, actually, if you're using this because of your need to offset the buffers along the two road fronts, we need to make sure this is adequate. That's what I'm suggesting. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I got it sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at -- well -- and it's your blowup ofjust your master plan for Tracts B and C where it does call out the buffers. So that Type A buffer notation, that 10-foot Type A buffer, somehow we need to put a cross-section note on there and include the reference to this new exhibit you're going to provide. That's it. Over on the right side, see the last sentence of that list of deviations? That is a strange sentence. How are you going to get trees to grow in straight lines? I just thought you've got to -- you're going from 20 feet, and canopy trees are usually wider than l0 feet, so now you're going to be planting these on one side of a 1O-foot are4 yet they're not allowed to grow past the slope easements. Do you -- can you enlighten me how you plan to handle that? MR. MULI{ERE: Well, the only thing that I can add in terms of enlightenment would be that they would have be to trimmed. You know, the whole idea of a canopy tree is to provide for shade. I think that's why it's there; you know, along the sidewalk, along the righrof-way. And I drove up and down Collier County roads and, boy, there's a lot of large canopy trees providing shade that you know, do extend a little bit into the - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at the aerial that you provided today, the trees that are already there today go past the easement line, and they are overhanging that easement. I would rather -- I'm not sure that's the right way to phrase what we're trying to do here. When tlris started, the overhangs into utility easements, it was private utility easements, PUEs within PUDs where they were tying to put trees in the front yard, and they were putting them at the edge of those PUEs, and they were actually causing a lot of problems. So we asked the buildings and the trees to be more restricted. I'm not sure it's necessary on a slope easement. It certainly doesn't seem to be appearing in the roadway. It's way inside of the travel lane. So maybe instead of referencing the road easements and slope easements you reference any step back from the travel lane; the tree's overhang will be back from the travel - will not impact the travel. MR. MULI{ERE: Well -- and that should be very achievable, because that slope easement's 10-foot wide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. MULHERE: And the buffer is 1O-foot wide, so if you plant yourtrees in the middle of buffer, you're -- you know, you're 15 feet from the edge of what is a right-of-way easement that provides for only a tum lane. You're still another l0 feet. So you'll be more than 20 feet away from the travel lane. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I would suggest you rewrite that a little bit so it's not -- MR. MULI{ERE: I'll get with Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I think it's going to be difficult to keep a tree growing at the width you're suggesting. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think we can come up with something that addresses -- you and I, we put that together, so I'm sure we can figure out something. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you're blaming it on Heidi; I understand. MR. MULHERE: Oh, no, no. I wrote the language. I put the language in there, but in response to a request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Exhibit 42, which is another buffer exhibit - but I think it's intended to be the one -- it is intended to be the one along the county roads. PagelT of49 August 17,2017 MR. MULIIERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is considered an enhanced buffer because of the way you've reduced the size and then added the palette of trees that you said you and Mark Templeton worked out. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That palette needs to be part of the record. So you'll need to enter that as an exhibit -- as part of this exhibit in the consent agreement, or the consent hearing. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Excuse me. That's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: And when you -- see the word "enhanced" on the bottom? Be sure to tablize the difference between the standard buffer and what you've got that's enhanced in this one, because in the end what happens is people say they're enhanced but they really are doing nothing more than the code calls for. MR. MLILHERE: Yes. I may -- I'll figure out the best way to do it, but I'll enumerate the enhancements on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The little reference, the second -- on the left side, the second notation, decorative fence with climbing vines planted eight feet on center, a lot of people look at a slatted wood fence as a decorative fence. We just had a debate about one on the Walmart on the East Trail. I'd rather not get into that on this project. I don't think you intend to put that. Can you be more definitive in how you're - what this fence is going to be made ofl MR. MULI{ERE: I think we'll add the word "metal" in there. I think it's going to be aluminum, but just to keep some flexibility, we'll say a decorative metal fence with climbing vines, if that works. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. When we get into the text of Section 7 that you've rewritten as a new section of the PUD, you have under accessory uses your recreational uses. And I understand they're accessory to the multifamily. They are restricted to the location shown on the master plan, so that covers that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Because normally we don't like those mixed up. We like separate reference -- separate sections for them, but I understand why this one's like that. But under 2, your customary accessory uses, you're not putting car washes in, and think I don't -- and I think that's an inappropriate word as far as what it could mean. Drivethrough car washes with blowers and things, I'm sure that's not what's intended, but I would suggest we modifu that to be more indicating. I think you said you wanted to do, like, hoses or wands or something like that. MR. MULI{ERE: Yes. I actually drove past - and I think it's actually in one of the pictures I put up there. I parked my car; I got out and looked at the Orchid Run. I don't know if I got a picture of it. I guess I didn't. There is a little car washing area within that. It has hoses and I think a vacuum, but it doesn't -- there's no -- you don't drive through. It's not any big thing. There's no structure. It's just a little area where you pull your car in and wash it. That's what we want. So my thought would be, maybe if we use the term "hand car wash area." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fure. But I just don't want anybody ever thinking that we've suggested car washes could be on this corner. Nobody would be happy with that. The last part of the sentence I think you need to drop. Solid waste and recycling facilities. I know Dan Rodriguez would love to have another recycling facility in Collier County, but I don't think you want to put that there, so -- and we do require dumpster enclosures anyway, so I'd just prefer that you not do that. Speaking of which, on your master plan, where are your dumpster enclosures going - where are they going to be located? And that's -- you don't -- you didn't provide that in the packet, but you do have a site plan. MR. MULI{ERE: I don't know that we have an exact area yet, likely -- excuse me -- likely close to the entrances so that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not on mike. MR. MULHERE: Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you. Likely close to the entrances. By the way, these -- as part of the service, people will put out their trash. It will be picked up and then put into the recycling and - trash and recycling will be picked up and put into a container. Page 18 of49 August 17 ,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to have dumpsters or you intend to have dumpsters and those kind of enclosures, please add them to the master plan for their locations or a minimum setback from the residential community to the sides. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we could do that. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 7 point - we might as well leave this up for a minute. While you've got this up, I've got a question. Your garages, are they enclosed, or are they carports? MR. MULHERE: They're enclosed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason Im asking these things, if this - if there's a motion for approval, everything that I'm saying, as you know, will probably be stipulated, so... Under 7.3, your first sentence, table sets forth the development standards for multifamily residential. It also sets foth for the recreational tract too, the recreational area. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So we should add -- for multifamily -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it says clubhouse recreation building. MR. MULI{ERE: The recreation tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into your Table 7.3 on the top, the third column, you say "accessory." I think you need to add "accessory to the multifamily units." MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You also use SPS a lot. Actually, that's as much writing as it would take to put in the actual number so there's no confusion. So I ask that you replace those with the actual numbers so we don't have a debate over what standard principal structure you're referring to. Same as -- SPS, same as principal structure. MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The minimum yards underyour internalto Tracts B and C, your minimum to the water body, I think you just need to say it's -- you're going to make that a lake tract, aren't you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you just say "minimum to lake tract," and then we don't have a discussion on what the water body is. MR. MULFIERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some transporlation issues, but before we get into somebody else, let me make sure I've got all the issues I need on you. You're going to be gating the access -- all the access points. And I - a question for you. On the master plan that's shown here -- well, this isn't a master -- your site plan. MR. MULHERE: Rich just asked me a question. I want to -- this will come in as an SDP. That lake won't be a separate tract. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. You're right. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then I need, though - the lake has a reference on the separate tract. It won't be called a water body. It will be probably called a lake. MR. MULHERE: Minimum - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the same language in the standards table so nobody's confused over what it means. MR. MULFDRE: Yeah, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Your - why do you have your gates on the north end inside the facilities? So that the public gets to use the clubhouse; is that how it's designed? Because that would not be helptul. MR. BOYD: There's an area there that's assessable to the public who want to initially come and see if they want to lease; they want to look at the complex. So we have a public area there that the public can come in and that don't necessarily need gate access. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So your sales center will be in the clubhouse that we're seeing right here? Page 19 of49 August ll,2017 MR. BOYD: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULFDRE: Mr. Chairman, just one other thing - and I was trying to furd it in here. But one of the things we discussed was an existing section of the PUD, 8.13, I think. I don't know if you were going to get to that yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- is that the one on transpor[ation? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm waiting on that for a minute. That's going to involve Mike and - MR. MULHERE: Actually, no. That's accessory structures. It says, "Accessory structures must be constructed simultaneous with or following the construction of principal structures and shall conform with the setbacks of principal structures" which, obviously, we have a -- I'm not even sure the existing PUD conforms with that statement. But as far as we're concerned, we're going to add an exemption from that because we have different setbacks for some accessories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Andthat's the -- MR. MULHERE: Parking structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I haven't got to the old PUD yet, so I'll be getting there. MR. MULI{ERE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You talked about the cost sharing of lakes. Somehow we're going to have to structure that into a requirement. The minimum principal setback from Dover Parc; I'm glad to hear your garages are enclosed. They actually are then a buffer to the Dover Parc project so that works out beneficially, but your principal structure setback, you went to a lot of trouble to push them back as far as possible. I would like to show a property line setback to those -- that residential line, if there isn't already one that applies, specifically to Dover Parc. MR. MULFIERE: Well, you know, the table identifies from Tract Dl, from Tract Bl, and from Tract L1. Tract B1, I believe, is the multifamily development, and there is a 30-foot minimum setback from that, but - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, why is it 30 feet when your principal structures on this particular map are shown -- I mean, look at your parking spaces, the width of your drive lane, and then the buffers to the north and the building itself. The nearest one, which would be Building 8, is farther than 30 feet. Why don't we use what's on this plan since that's what we're talking about? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a conceptual plan. We don't have a detailed plan yet. We are trying to maximum tlrat separation but you know, typically in zoning, you put a minimum standard in. We don't have a final set plan yet. So if we have to shift anything - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to have a drive on the north side of Building 8? I mean, there's one shown here. You see the drive lane between the garage and the building? MR. MULHERE: Right here? CHAIRMAN STRAN: No, no. Building 8. MR.MULHERE: Okay. I'mtryingtolook. Oh,yes. Sorry. Yes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to have parking spaces on both sides of that drive lane? MR. MULI{ERE: It's intended, yeah. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to have an 8- to l0-foot offset from the property line before you get to your wall? MR. MULHERE: Well, you can see it's a little less right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no. I'm talking about from the wall to the property line. MR. MULI{ERE: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're talking about from the wall to the park - MR. MULI{ERE: Yes. CHAIRMANSTRAN: Okay. Soyou'vegoteightto l0feet;let'ssayeight. You'vegot--each parking space is what, 9 by l8 or something like that; so there's 36. You've got a 20-foot drive lane at the worst. So you've got 50 feet right there. So the setback from Dover is going to be at least 50 fee! so why Page 20 of 49 August 17,2017 don't we use that? MR. MULI{ERE: I'll check -- I'll check those distances, and we'll revise it to put the maximum setback in there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. MIILI{ERE: Fifty feet's fine. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: The issue with modifuing the existing connections, I'm not sure how that works, and I'm probably going to, during break, talk with the County Attomey's Office to see how that gets to fig because you are going to have to cut offthat current cul-de-sac at Skelly Road, which is your turnaround area for - especially for emergency vehicles and things like that. I know that if there's disagreement in the community over the outcome of this meeting and you need their cooperation to modifo Skelly Road, I think that needs to be ironed out before we get that far so you don't run into a roadblock down the road. And I don't know how that works with staft I don't know how it works for the County Attomey's Office, but it's a question that is sitting there, and I'm not sure how to fix it. I didn't really think about it until you made some statements today and the question came earlier by one of the other members. MR. YOVANOVICH: An4 m. Strain, you make a good point. If we have to design around that cul-de-sac as it currently exists, we're going to need some flexibility, because if the community decides the way they'll kill this project is to refuse to let us move the cul-de-sac, we need to have some flexibility to modified that cul-de-sac on our property. It doesn't mean we're going to interconnect, but we need some flexibility maybe with walls and all that other stuft if - so we're going to need to address tha! and I think that's an excellent point you brought up. Our desire and what we've heard from the community is no interconnection, but we have to have the ability to design around that issue if we can't get cooperation. I think it's the corilnon area for the association; I'm not 100 percent sure. So we would need to make sure we have the flexibility to design around that if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need to provide an alternate idea conceptually when you come back in consent. One item that you wouldn't need necessarily to do is provide a cul-de-sac. You could do a hammerhead turnaround which usually suffices. And those are nzrrower, so it wouldn't take up much additional property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yeah. tm just saying that we'll have to -- we may have to -- you're right. That's an excellent point, and let us look at how that would work if we can't prevent the interconnection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REISCHL: Don't forget Mr. Chairman, too -- Fred Reischl, Planning andZoning. Don't forget that that would be offsite from this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. If they -- no, no, no. You're missing the point. What he's saying is he may not be able to go offsite to modiff anything, so that means they may have to modifo the hammerhead on his site to accommodate whatever requirements there are. Now -- and this is for Bob. Bob, during your discussion, you said that this project is already approved by South Florida Water Management District, the -- for the drainage. MR. MULI{ERE: The overall project, not this - not this portion of it. There will be some modifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike, Bob. MR. MULI{ERE: Sorry. There'll be some modifications for this projecl but the overall - this tract is included in the overall stormwater management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The tract is, but the specifics of the impervious areas of this project are not. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was tying to clarifu. We mentioned the palette of plants from -- you're going to provide for Mark Templeton if -- whatever you stated you worked out with him. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Page 2l of 49 August 17 ,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: You did mention you're going to use masonry construction, tile roofs. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CfilIRMAN STRAN: You're going to have electric vehicle parking chargers in the garages. Those are all -- been put on record. Okay. Those are all elements of value to the community, and Ijust want to make sure, if we stipulate, some of those things have to be done, they get done to keep the project to be what it is proposed to be. You're looking at a minimum size unit of 750 feet. You have agreed to pay your proportionate share of water management system. Again, I'm not sure how that's going to work, but we have to figure that one out, along with the last one we talked about. Also, the PUD allows fill to be taken offsite. And rather than get to those paragraphs, I'll bring it up now. You don't intend to take any fill offsite, or what's your situation there? MR. MULHERE: No, we do not intend to. We believe that we'll need that fill to have a balance. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for the size of the lake you've got, the amount of fetch formula that's going to allow you to go to a certain depth, you're not going to get that much fill out of that lake. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, I think I'm right -- but you'll correct me if I'm wrong -- the LDC, I think, has a certain minimum you can take off-- or maximum you can take off without - CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Up to 20,000 acres. The problem I have is the - MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right,20,000 cubic yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 20,000 cubic yards. This particular PUD allows it be to taken offwithout a restriction. That's what I'm concemed about. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we'll ever exceed -- I don't think we're going to take any. But you know, the minute I say nothing's leaving the site, I get bitten. So I would like to -- can we agree that nothing above the maximum prescribed in the LDC will be removed from this site so it's not unlimited? CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want it to be as the PIID states it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not in the LDC. It's in the Code of Laws. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, it's code of -- it's the excavation section of Code of Laws, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I knew it existed somewhere in the regulations. So we're not asking you for any type of exemption or deviation for that on this parcel. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'd like to ask Mike Sawyer a couple things before - about your -- go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, he's probably a good person to ask the question to, but I'll ask it through you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding for apartrnents that go through a Site Development Plan process -- and can you put our Site Development Plan up, Bob? MR. MLILI{ERE: I can't put anything up; I broke the visualizer. Troy, where are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. So I just want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a break in a couple minutes. Hopefully we can find someone to come in and fix it then. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding is that the internal pavement that you drive on is considered a driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not a road. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that -- Bob. I just want to make sure we're clear on the record that under the Collier County regulations that's considered a driveway and not a road right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It always has been. And I've been doing this for decades. So maybe Mike can enlighten us if he thinks it's different when he comes up. And he's probably going to come up after break, Page 22 of 49 August 17,2017 because now that Bob broke the visual, we're going to have to get that fixed before we go too far. Bob, what I'll do is after break I will bring - I will move into the transportation discussion on a couple issues. I have some more back-and-forth on the other issues as well, but I want to take them in order. This was a204-page documen! and I, unfortunately, had to lay it out in order, so we'll just have to move through it that way. Okay. With that, let's take a break, and we'll come back at - 10:40 would be enough time, I think, for the court reporter. So l0:40 we'll resume the meeting. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: If everybody will please take their seats, we'll resume the meeting. Hey, Mike, did you see what Ray just did? He missed the time. That's not like him. Now, Ray, Mike has never done that so... Okay. We'll resume where we kind of left o Bob, you're standing there. Is there something that you wanted to say before I picked up again? MR. MULI{ERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, I'd like to ask Norm some questions so that when I ask Mike to come up he can also veri! or respond. MR. MULFTERE: Perfect. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Forthe record, my name is Norm Trebilcock. I'm a professional engineer and certified planner, and I've been a past expert for you all. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: I don't have a lot of questions about the way you did your report, because it's typical but more or less, why you did it certain ways. Page 4, bottom, you say the following, "The Collier County approved PUD Ordinance 95-33 currently allows the site to be developed with an unspecified square footage of commercial area." That's not true. It's very specific. In fact that specificity has caused some people problems in the past. It's 139,000 and some change. It's a computation of the acreage, which leads me to a couple other questions. You use the shopping center category. This has an SDP for a Lowe's for 138,371 or some change like that. Why didn't you use the hardware store or the Lowe's category? Because Lowe's by itself is not a shopping center. MR.TREBILCOCK: Correct. Well,whatldidisldidlookattheoriginalTlS in1975 whenthey did the zoning for the property, and it was identified as commercial, and it had 100,000 square feet of commercial for it then. And so what I di{ just moving forward, is used that as the number for a shopping center that can be developed. I mean, to your point, yes, we could also show, I guess, 139,000 square feet of shopping center potentially. But as a - I guess I did it this way as a matter of zoning, you know, what I would call, like, a highest and best use for the property potentially could be. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, you're not an appraiser, though, are you? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're making -- MR. TREBILCOCK: -- more from a fraffic - a traffic engineering. Typically what I'll do is I'll try and look at like, you know, the highest amount that can potentially be done there, reasonably so. So, you're right, I'm not an appraiser, but I do look at traffic, and I try and model what the traffic impacts could be for a propefty. So, you know, to your poing yes, the superstore home improvement center would be a different use. That could be used there, too; yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Let's just back up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You use the shopping center 100,000 square feet. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you use a hardware store or a superstore shopping center, which isn't -- I mean, a superstore center at 139,000 square feet, which we have an SDP in the system for, which is Lowe's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Page 23 of 49 August ll,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what outcome would we have from that? Have you done that scenario? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So if you had that, that would still be higher than what we're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. And what is the best way to portray the changes in this project, from what was already on the books as an SDP for a supercenter big box versus what your client's asking for? So, in essence, doing what I just suggested would have shown a better outcome for the traffic, which probably would have helped people understand the differences between what they could have versus what this does. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: So I'd suggest maybe you refine some of that TIS for the next hearing you go to from here,just so you have the number, unless you have a reason -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, I have that number, but the only thing is, is really, from a land use perspective, you can put in a shopping center. Again, just strictly from a zoning standpoint of what you can do on the property, that's all. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't think the Lowe's that the staffhad for an SDP has been something you can do on the property? MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, you definitely can, yes, sr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that's the high -- that is the more greater use at a higher intensity than the use you used, isn't it? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm getting at. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. No, no, exactly. Basically, if you did the Lowe's and used the pass-by numbers, it would be 241peak-hour trips in the p.m. So it would be -- it would still be more than what we're proposing, but it wouldn't be as high as, like, 100-square-foot shopping center that was originally proposed in the PUD to begin with. So that was the only reasoning, so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was looking at the latest documents. If this project was not approved, then the fallback could easily be the Lowe's that already is on the record -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pertheir SDP? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That to me, would be a more logical fallback than something else, because Lowe's still owns the property. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sure. That makes sense, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in reviewing the TISs that you -- where you said you used the J 5 or 77, did you look at the TIS for the Lowe's SDP? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. I didn't use that, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only questions I have from your TIS at this time. Thank you, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions ofNorm? Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious.I saw Google Earth on there before. Can you go to Google Earth and zoom in around that cul-de-sac. MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't know if the visualizerhelps. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWIC: Yeah, there you go. MR. TREBILCOCK: Wait. We had it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That is Google Eafth I'm looking at, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can you zoom into that cul-de-sac. MR. TREBILCOCK: Bob, don't touch that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm dealing with Luddites or what? It's Google Earth. Everybody knows Google Earth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's the machine. Page 24 of 49 August l7 ,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just pan down. Yeah, there you go. Little closer. Whoa, there you go. Zoom in a little. Okay. Now, we're talking about taking out that circular portion at the end, which is kind of really a weird-looking cul-de-sac. What is that little road going offto the upper left there? Is that just into the woods? From the cul-de-sac itself. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. It doesn't serve anything directly, Stan. So to the good point that's made is you can see from -- really, from an emergency - if you sever this connection, there really isn't need, necessarily, for a cul-de-sac there at all because, really, for emergency vehicles and turnaround, you know, you've got - you can loop through in this area. You've got a through-type roadway that you can -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And then you've got a cul-de-sac up at the end of that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. This doesn't serye -- as you see, there's no driveways or anything like that loaded on it. We were just offering, as a -- you know, because there was some kind of, you know - and you can see that cul-de-sac doesn't meet any current standards at all. It's an overall. But we were just offering that you know, to the folks as an ability to tum around, that we could put it on their property. But you know, to your point, it really isn't necessary at all, you know. The county would - typically would require a properly improved cul-de-sac for them to develop themselves. It was just, I think, set up as a future interconnect. But that not being the case or desire, it can be severed here and not really create an issue for - to develop the property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And, in fact, whatyou have is ahammerhead. You'd pull in, you'd back into that thing and back out. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. And we can get with the Development Services staffjust to confirm that as well to make sure they would - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, before consent for your own benefig you need to do one or the other -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: - and figure out a solution. So, yeah, that would be a great idea. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If you can get Developmental Services to respond timely and get back to you in time for the consent that would be great. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. I-Ih-huh. Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's all I've got. Mike, I'd like to ask just a couple short questions of you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Quick question. I think earlier Bob - maybe I -- it was pointed out to me during the break, I think we had mentioned before, for those that are here, Livingston Road is three lanes. I think it was mentioned, maybe I misheard it. You had mentioned Radio Road was three lanes. It was brought to my attention that Radio Road is only two lanes, correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes, correct. It's two lanes. Two lanes. If I said six lanes, I misspoke. [t's two lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Patrick. MR. MULI{ERE: Well, four lanes total; two lanes each direction. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Mike, good morning. MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike - forthe record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Just a couple things. First of all, are you familiar with this throat length for the cul-de-sac if it's cut off? Is that something you can offer now, or is that -- you'd rather leave that to -- MR. SAWYER: Honestly, I would not - I would rather research that for you to get the exact figures for you. I would rather not do that just offthe cuff. Page 25 of 49 August 77,2017 CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Okay. What about the ability or the assurance that the system that's within the - a multifamily project such as this and the way they've shown, it would not be roads. They would be driveways. MR. SAWYER: Most of the time when these projects come in, they all come in as driveways. That's not to say that you couldn't, for whatever reason, if you wanted to plat them as right-of-ways, you would have that option, but you would have to plat them as such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the county doesn't care if they're driveways at this point? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the proposed PUD changes, they've renumbered the transportation sections.InsteadofT.ll,it'sS.ll.8.llBsaysthedevelopershallprovideafairsharecontributiontothe traffic signal on Radio Road. And that's old language. Have you looked at that to see if it's still valid or not? Because I don't believe we're doing that now. MR. SAWYER: I can tell you right now we have no plans to do even a study to look into putting additional signals in that road corridor. That's not to say that we couldn't if there was something in the future that drove a need to do a study to see if there were warrants. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So -- MR. SAWYER: You never say never, I guess, at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is for the main entrance. So it isn't for this project. But my concern is it refers to the developer. And since this is one PUD, how are the contributions for the developer going to be determined when there's multiple developers of this PUD? MR. SAWYER: What we would do, if that were to come up, we would find out who the entity is that has responsibility for the overall PUD, and we would basically look at having our engineer that would be doing the design for the signal and all of the work associated with it, we would wind up having them prepare something that showed what the background taffic is as well as the fair share portion that would be responsible for the PUD itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The payment would have to be made by the entity assuming the responsibilities of the developer or the developer, if he's still intact. MR. SAWYER: Or whoever's been assigned, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I understandthatpiece of it. C says, "The developer shall provide left and right turn lanes on Radio Road at the main entrance to the project. This construction shall be coordinated with the four-laning of Radio Road." All that's been done, right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should thatparagraph be dropped? MR. SAWYER: It certainly could be, or it could simply be stated as "complete." CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. One or the other. The applicant today, we can -- since we're changing the PUD, I wanted to update as much as we could, so... MR. SAWYER: I agree. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, that's all I had. I appreciate yourtime. Thankyou. MR. SAWYER: Noproblem. Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that takes me to the end of my questioning at this time. So anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. And with that, we'll go to a staffreport. Fred? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. First of all, this was a team effort. I'd like to thank Eric Johnson and Nancy Gundlach for doing the majority of this work. I wrote the staffreport, but they did most of the work prior to that. And as detailed in the staffreport, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and it's compatible with the neighborhood, and we recommend approval including the Deviation No. 1, the only deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- we've talked about a series of changes here today, or Page26 of 49 August ll,2017 clarifications. Anyhing you heard would staffbe objectionable to? MR. REISCHL: No issues. The only thing I wanted to remind you is that we don't deal with ownership; therefore, anything that you're thinking of as an apartment would also apply to multifamily single ownership. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Right. So it could be condominium versus -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou, Fred. Anybody have any questions of stafl (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. With that, we're going to go to public speakers. Now, we start with those that are registered and put in -- those that have slips submitted to Fred or Ray, and then at the end I'11 ask anybody else who has not spoken to please - if you want to address us, we certainly are here to listen to you. And we ask that everybody -- we asked early on to please rise if you wanted to be sworn in by the court reporter so you could testifu. If you were not swom in, please let us know so we get you sworn in so your testimony then goes on record that way. With that, we'll call the speakers. You can use either podium, and the limitation is five minutes, and we'll go from there. MR. REISCHL: First speaker is Janice Kieman, to be followed by Kim Bennett. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who's timing the five minutes? CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, watching the clock. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's informal. So, ma'am, if you need 10 seconds over, it's okay. MS. KIERNAN: Good moming, everyone. My name is Janice Kiernan. I live in Briarwood. I own a home. I live there year-round. I would like to mention a few words about the densiff issues. The PUD was originally designed to allow the stores to be -- to enhance the Briarwood communrty and provide balance between residential and commercial zoning in that specific area according to the FLUE or the Future Land Use Element. If the zoning is to change to allow for the 320 apartments, then the density -- I don't understand why Briarwood themselves would be included, because you're changing the whole thing around. The original PUD did not -- was to allow for just the Briarwood and a quality of life to allow for certain - the lakes and everything else. So now, in - according to the new PUDA document that I saw 312312017 supplied by the developer, the density changed, according to them, 2.85 to 4.4 per - density per uni! but the Briarwood community is, itself, 193 acres. I don't understand. They have 15 acres on the corner and they're allowing to - the 320 apartments in that unit -- on that development. This calculation comes to me to say that it's over 20 units per acre which is above the FLUE densif ratings in the growth management process. So I can't understand in one case, oh, we don't want anything to do with them; in the next case it's like we include them for our density. On Page l1 of the PUDA, Table7.3, which you mentioned in the pas! the maximum building height they have zoned was 55 fee! yet the actual building heights on these is 62 feet. I don't understand that either. The original PUD suggested that the height of the buildings should be, at max, 30 feet according to what I read. So 62 feet of building in that little 15.99 acres is going to look quite massive, I think, in that small space. The 320 unit apartments impacted - will impact schools which right now have a maximum capacity, according to the sheets, and you're saying that there's more and more buildings being added as far as apartments. Now, these apartments, according to them, were mostly young professionals, which probably will have kids. Now, I see East Naples, the middle school, does not have any available capacity as of 2016. So that's something that should be taken into account. Water resource, especially in the winter months, is also something that -- Page27 of49 August 17,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: You need to slow down a little bit, because she's got to type as fast as you and I talk, and you're starting to talk real fast. So I do that when I have a lot of coffee in the morning, and she gets mad at me. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many minutes does she have left? MS. KIERNAN: Yeah. I'm tryingto fit it all in. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's okay. MS. KIERNAN: I'll give her this, if she likes, so... Also, the water resources, especially in the winter months, the waste management treatment plants haven't been in consideration because even though you have 320 apartments there, you mentioned all these other apartments, and 320 apartments probably will mean more like a thousand-plus people. Roadways, it's not only the traffic, but you're forgetting the bike lanes that you guys were going to put in at one point, and the police and fire departrnent which includes the East Naples Fire Department. Now, also, what I was looking at was the evaluation that - what they were supposed to fill in. And these PUDA's modifications do not meet the Collier County Growth Management Evaluation Criteria Option C, which states that the conformity of the original PUD with goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management should conform to the original PUD. So I'm not quite sure what's going on. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, just a couple responses. The 320 units, if you divide that by the 15.99 acres, you come out to 20 units per acre. That's how that calculation - MS. KIERNAN: Over 20 units per acre, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually -- okay. It's rounded to 20, so that's how it works. MS. KIERNAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height - the height you're referring to is what's called actual height. That's architectural height. That isn't zoned height. Zoned height is the same as Dover Parc in regards to stories; four stories. So they could put l2-foot - MS. KIERNAN: Dover Parc -- everything in the area is only two stories high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But their zoning allows four. They're asking for the same zoning of that neighboring area. As far as the school goes, we just happen to have Tom Eastman here, who's been dying for you to ask that question. Tom, would you mind responding to her. MR. EASTMAN: Historically, the school district has not stood in the way of development, be it for any residential or apartment complex. And over the years we've tried to make seats available and have met that goal. There's also in place concurrency, school concurrency which governs that. And in the event that we were unable to provide seats, we could exercise and slow down the process of development through the concuffency program. But that's really not the case here. We actually have some excess capacity. It would require rezonings. But we always try to meet the demand, and that's been our history. We monitor the developments very closely and don't want to stand in the way of progress or the development in the community. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And maybe I misunderstood somethingyou were aiming toward or misunderstood what Mark said. Bu! Fred, correct me if I'm wrong. A PUD has an overall allowable maximum number of units, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And if you don't use them in one part, you can use them in another, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. We look at gross density -- net density is certainly something that you can take a look at, but the way we measure it is gross density for the entire PUD limits. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is that what you were asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, on this -- Page28 of 49 August 17,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: - or did I misunderstand? CHAIRMAN STRAN: In this particular case, Stan, they cannot use the excess density that exists in Briarwood on this parcel because that -- the ownership of that is contested as far as who really owns it. So that's why they're asking for an additional on top of it even though all of the existing density has not been used. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the departments you referenced, solid waste and all that, they've reviewed this project. This project gets reviewed and gone through all departments in Collier County before it comes to us. So that part, as far as their addressing it, they have addressed it. And as far as the comprehensive planning, in essence, this comes under a rezoning reevaluation issue in which this was not consistent with the Growth Management Plan when it came into effect. The commercial actually is -- was an exception to that plan. That's why we encouraged the commercial to be redeveloped into a residential use by giving them additional density for doing tha! because that makes it more consistent with the GMP. We have a comprehensive planning review that was provided that acknowledges that this was and is consistent with that particular plan. So all that stuffs been looked at, ma'am. And you may not have all the records because it's -- not all of it was quickly available. So I just wanted to make those points a little bit clearer. So thank you. MS. KIERNAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Next speaker? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Kim Bennett followedbyLiz Opalka. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Ms. Bennett? MS. BENNETT: I thank you for having me. I'm Kim Bennett. I live in Briarwood. I've been there for about 14 years, so I've seen a lot of change and a lot of growth in the area since I've been just in Briarwood. I was going to get up and speak a little bit about the number of units that are currently available in the Naples area, not even knowing about the 2,300 units that are under consfuction, so that concems me even greater. But currently, just on the MLS, which doesn't include apartments that are run by companies such as this that do their own apartment rental on site, there are 776 units open in Naples looking for renters. Right now there are 2,053 units for holiday rentals. So we're taking separating completely your vacationers that come here part time in the winter and annual renters that are full-time residents. In addition to that there are many vacancies in those apartment buildings. Unfortunately, I didn't get to call everybody to get their vacancy ratios from them, but I did call quite a few of the local apartment managers to get those statistics. And Orchid Run, which is closest to Briarwood and the newest one, not only has 38 less units than what they're proposing building on a much larger parcel of land, but they're sitting with 20 units vacant, unoccupied at this moment looking for people to come and stay there. With that said, you speak to wanting to have housing available to our schoolteachers, our firefighters, our police officers. Most of those people have wives and children. Wives and children will not fit in a one-bedroom apartment, which is where their $1,400 starting rate is. So you have to jump up considerably to have a room for your kids to even go to our schools. That's just Orchid Run. LaCosta has 44 vacant units. Malibu Lakes has 36. Bermuda Palms has 33. That's a total of 133 more unfurnished, vacant, annual rentals in that same unaffordable price point that we have in Naples right now. Actual statistics; phone call made last night. So this is current as of yesterday. I didn't get to call places like River Reach or Granada or some of the other locations nearby that are still inNaples to get their statistics from them. But with over 900 units sitting unoccupied right now, if we add another 320 to them, the cause is going to be, yes, lower rents in our older rental communities because their prices are going to be driven down and maybe possibly made more effective for people to be able to go there because some people will move to the newer, fancier places to live, the people who could afford it, the young professionals who can afford it. Page29 of 49 August 17,201'7 But how does that affect Collier County on the whole if we start forcing prices down in other properties that have been here for years? Is it going to make it so they can't maintain them effectively? Is it going to cause blight on the community because they go down and it affects other neighborhoods outside of Briarwood? In addition to that, as a Briarwood resident we were promised something that benefited Briarwood residents. We went through this already on this. I don't know why we keep trying to change our PIID, but our PUD was intended to benefit us. Our density in Briarwood was made that way because we didn't want to pack in as many people as we could pack into that section of land. We wanted the space between the homes. We wanted the quality of life. We wanted the lakes to give beauty to our environment. And to think that everything we fought for to surround ourselves with a little bit more land is all going to be used to put tons of people on the point that doesn't benefit us at all -- in fact, it hurts us. And they talk about a shopping center being more traffic, but yet a shopping center would be utilized by the traffic that already exists there. We're not going to bring new traffic in to go to the shopping center. They're not going to come from Immokalee Road to use my strip mall. They're gong to come fi'om Foxfire, they're going to come from Berkshire, they're going to come from the neighborhoods that are already going past our homes that are on their way home, on their way out. It's going to maybe alleviate fraffrc if a shopping center's there in other communities because we won't have to drive by them because we'll have it right outside our door. But bringing in these aparfinents brings in 500 more cars, and that's on the low side, of people that aren't here now. That impacts our traffic. That impacts our quality of life quite tremendously. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. BENNETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Liz Opalka, followed by Robert MacKenzie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. OPALKA: Hello. My name is Liz Opalka. I live and own a condominium unit in Building 354 on Dover Place in Briarwood. I've been there for 12 years. And I'm a working professional. I work nine to five in North Naples. I generally leave home at7:30 in the morning to get to my offrce at eight o'clock. And because of the traffic currently on Radio Road at that time of day, I generally cannot exit through the Radio Road entrance during the morning rush hour. And so I have to use the Livingston Road exit in order to get to work. It's not too much trouble for me, but I know it is trouble for other homeowners who are trying to exit during the morning rush hour. My primary concern with the development of this parcel of land into apartments that would be trying to attract working professionals like me is that there will be even more traffic on Radio Road in the morning. Currently, because of the traffic light at the intersection of Livingston Road and Radio Road, there is a backup of traffic right to our entrance on Radio Road. With another driveway and more people exiting this apartment developmen! there will be more traffic at that point. More people will be wanting to use Livingston Road because of that and it's going to be more usage during the morning rush hour. I'm not aware of problems in the evening rush hour. Maybe someone else can talk about that. Another concern that I have is whether this community -- proposed community would be perceived as a part of Briarwood. It appears that the working title for the development is Briarwood Apartments. My preference is if this project does go through, it would have a different name so it would be clear to the general public that there - that this is two separate communities. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Robert MacKenzie, followed by Diane Parillo. MR. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Board, good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good morning. Page 30 of49 August 17,2017 MR. MaoKENZIE: Still is morning. My name is Robert MacKenzie. I'm a Briarwood owner living at 425 Dundee Court. Over 23 years ago I did a lot of research before buying my present home in Briarwood. Briarwood is a Planned Unit Development. Yes, planned. It's seen some changes, but its character has not been changed, nor should it be. It's a good plan that serves its intended purpose. I like the balance; the combination of single-family homes, condominiums or single-family homes. Reasonably sized multifamily area; I always assumed that was for apartments. We called it Cedarwood. I think that's been since separated but, essentially, it's part of the PUD. That's along Radio Road. And then the commercial block that we're talking about that's also along Radio Road. Livingston Road had not been constructed at that time, but it was included in the plan. I like the character of Naples. I like the zoning factors. I like the PUD. I like the elevations and so forth. That means how much above sea level we were. I'm an engineer; a nerd. We look at those things. So everything looked good, so I went ahead and purchased my new home, but the proposed zoning change would drastically change key issues that I based my purchase decision on. And I say, why have zonngbylaws at all if we're willing to change them without compelling reasons that give significant advantage to the community at large? There are no substantial reasons why this property cannot be used as zoned. The staffanswers Point l3 as to whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zontng saying basically nothing that I really could understand. My understanding is that you need to find substantial reasons why the property cannot be used as currently zoned. Will the site be used as currently zoned? Of course it will; that's the way I feel. There's been a significant increase in apartrnents and other dwellings in the area with more currently approved along -- coming along the way. This gives greater demand for a commercial purpose - for a commercial proper{ to service the needs of the community. When Wawa wanted to build across the street, which was zoned industrial, it needed a zoning change from industrial to commercial. They were granted the change because, as I understand, it was said there was enough commercial property available in the area. Why, then, do we want to decrease the amount of commercial property now when it's already found that we need more? It makes no sense to me. Did we let Wawa build on the wrong side of the sfeet? I don't know. Point 15 in the staffreport addresses whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The answer is an admission that there are followed by some unresponsive thing that I can't find any facts for. The facts I came up with that I have on a quick search found 12 sites that are currently listed as available and zoned multifamily. There are ample property zone sites for the apartment project. We should not lose our PIID's commercially zoned parcel to a proposed project that is not consistent with the needs and the character of the PUD's plan. Please do not support this change, then maybe I can get my hope for a Sunshine Ace Hardware store, a liquor store, a barbershop, a pharmacy, or maybe even a nice little Italian restaurant that I can walk to without driving all over town adding to our traffrc problems. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Is Diane Parillo, followed by Elizabeth Davison. MS. PARILLO: Hi. I'm Diane Parillo. I live at 942Tivoli Court. I've been here for seven years. And most of what I was going to say has already been covered by the people who have talked already. I guess my main question right now is you keep referring to Orchid Run. Anybody who's drove down Golden Gate to Livingston, you have already seen that Golden Gate has already been widened to accommodate the traffic that has occurred because of Orchid Run's apartments that are going up. There is no room for that kind of expansion on Radio Road or Livingston where this project is going to occur. Page 3l of49 August 17,201'7 And I would like to know how you are going to deal with that traffrc like the traffic that occurred because of the Orchid Run apartments going up at that -- and you're making a face. If you go there, if you see Golden Gate, they have widened that down towards -- I guess going west on the right-hand side, and that's already occurred. And there's no way that you're going to be able to accommodate more apartments -- more cars from those apaltments that are going up at that point. And I guess my other question, which I don't know if we got an answer for, why do we have to keep coming up and defending a change to the PUD? The PUD was established, and with the carport that was going up, we had to come here and defend the change to that. Now you want to change it again, and we're here trying to defend the change to that. You people should be here defending us and standing for what we want and they should have to prove that what they're going to do is a benefit to us and to our community, not the other way around. And I don't -- I don't see that happening. Thank you. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: It's Elizabeth Davison followed by John Alcott. I-INIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's gone. MR. REISCHL: John Alcott's gone. It will be Scott Lepore. MS. DAVISON: Good moming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming. MS. DAVISON: My name is Elizabeth Davison. I live in Briarwood. I've been here for 14 years. I've been a homeowner in Naples almost 35 years starting out at Naples Bath and Tennis Club, so I have seen the changes in Naples and the increased - people decry the increased traffic and crowded restaurants and parking lots. And I understand the progress and desirability of Naples and why so many people want to move here, and I'm willing to share paradise with all the newcomers. What I'm not willing to do is to decrease the quality of life for those of us fortunate enough to live in a little hamlet called Briarwood. I'm, quite frankly, flabbergasted at the staffreport from the zoning division, and no disrespect. On Page 5, under Section 1, it's stated that the staffhas reviewed the proposed PUD amendment and believes that the addition of certain multifamily uses are compatible within the PUD. The addition will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. I don't know if any of your staffhas actually visited the site or are relying on the traffic impact analysis which was provided, but I invite each of the plaruring board members to visit Briarwood between the hours of seven and nine a.m. and try to exit our community onto Radio Road. I know this topic has come up before. This moming I overheard one of our members saying he actually had to make a U-tum at Radio Road and go back through the complex to get out on Livingston Road. And that there will be exits onto Livingston Road from the parcel is also alarming. We currently experience traffic backup by those attempting to enter Briarwood through the guardhouse on Livingston. Am I talking too fast? So.ry. CHAIRMAN STRAN: She's nodding her head yes. MS. DAVISON: Okay. There are times when cars are lined up, and the increase from this housing unit will also add to what is already an accident waiting to happen. The addition of 320 multifamily units on that corner is estimated to bring an extra 544 cars. That's using a supposition of 1.7 cars. But if we're talking, as discussed, mostly two family -- two people, working professionals, in a family, that's going to be at least two cars per family. And nowhere in this report -- or we discussed this morning that there's a 72 townhome unit going up just to the east of Briarwood on Radio Road between us and Maplewood. That's already approved and ready to go. The other traffic issue which has been discussed is the Wawa on the corner of Radio Road and Livingston. I'm from New Jersey; I don't know if you can tell. I've kind of gotten rid of most of that accent. Page 32 of 49 August l'7,2017 But if you know about Wawa, they have almost a cultlike following. There's great anticipation of their opening, and we are expecting a lot oftraffic there. And I don't disparage that. I'm kind of looking forward to Wawa opening up. So even with these two new items, it's estimated by the traffrc analysis that the net traffic external increase will be 2,063 cars on a weekday with this new development. Radio Road just can't handle that increase. And my understanding, arld this was discussed, that the two lanes are at capacity, and there's no increased lanes to be added. They also estimate that the increase in traffic is less if the land is maintained for -- then if the land is maintained for commercial use. We disagree, and I respectfully request the planning board to consider the tremendous taffrc that will be added to our complex on a24-horx basis by making the change from commercial to residential. We believe that with the commercial use, which is currently approved, traffic would at least not be around the clock. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Does anybody know how many parking spaces are on that plan we were shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure the developer knows. After we get done with public speakers, do you want me -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, I was just curious, because they keep talking, you know, and I'm wondering, you can't put more cars in there than the number of parking spaces, and I'm -- you know, I'm just wondering what that number was. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Bob, do you have somebody that can answer that question? MR. REISCHL: I can tell you the minimum - the minimum for a one-bedroom would be one and a half spaces per unig and for everyhing greater than that would be two per unit. That's the minimum. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But they had a drawing, and the drawing looked packed - MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: - with parking. And I'm wondering what that number came to, ifanybody - MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: - did a total. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think there is a total on there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you can't find it real quick, we can go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you look for ig and when we get done with public speakers, there's going to be some questions of our transportation department as far as capacity goes, too, so... Mr. Lepore? MR. REISCHL: Scoft kpore followed by Ross (sic) Berghuis. MR. LEPORE: Good morning, Commissioners. And I want to thank you for being here. I know most of you are volunteers. Mark, even though you're paid by Collier County, I'm going to thank you, too. But I've served on a lot of boards -- I've served on a lot of boards, and I know that it's a lot of work. And we appreciate you hearing our concerns today. I'm here today to express my objection to any changes regarding the Briarwood PUD and, specifically, the 15.97-acre parcel at Radio Road and Livingston that is zoned for a shopping center. I am vehemently opposed to any changes to that PUD that would allow a nonconforming apartment complex with 320 units and2l units an acre of density on that 15.97-acre parcel. ln reviewing the Briarwood PUD, P-U-D, which I was given when I purchased in '96, I see nothing in there that would allow this apartment complex to be built. Given the number of apartment complexes Page 33 of49 August 17,2017 located within three miles of this area, all that have residences available to lease at this given time, this is a clear attempt by the developer to use the properly for a use that is noncompliant and nonconcurrent. We are taking a step closer to becoming Fort Lauderdale, ladies and gentlemen. As an almost 30-year resident of Collier County, I will be fighting this project head on. Radio Road is ill-equipped to handle another major project of this density at this point especially west of Santa Barbara. I want to go over some bullet points, because I was very surprised when Bob said that Radio Road was a three-lane road, and he compared Orchid Run at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston to this project, which would be at Livingston and Radio Road. Now, I realize that people make mistakes, but I think that was very telling, because Livingston Road meets Radio Road. It's the only section of Livingston Road in all of Collier County where you don't have three lanes meeting three lanes. ln other words, if you go to Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. If you go to Pine fudge and Livingston Road, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. If you go to Immokalee Road or Vanderbilt, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. But on this parcel right here you have three lanes meeting two lanes. Again, the only major intersection in Collier County where Livingston Road intersects with a main feeder road that is only two lanes. And there is no way to expand Radio Road to three lanes. I think that's the most important point. Increasing Radio Road to three lanes is impossible, especially between Santa Barbara and Livingston. The property is not zoned for apartment complexes. We seem to be getting in a situation now where we have a quest to fill in everything between Livingston Road and the beach in that four-mile radius. And I know there's a lot of requests to change zoning, but this property is not zoned for apartment complexes. Two hundred seventy-five residential units were just constructed at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. If you call them, they have availability. Many people have mentioned the ample apartment complexes that are located within two miles of this project that all have availability. So there is no pressing need for this. It's not an affordable housing project. It's basically another luxury apartment complex where rents are going to be 1,400 to $2,000 a month. The PUD was designed in 1976 with a specific purpose for a shopping center or a big box store to complement the single-family homes and condominiums, not to be able to take the total density and divide that out to say that this project would be concurrent and compatible. That's not what the commissioners were doing in 1976, ladies and gentlemen. What the commissioners were doing was trying to make sure that we have harmony in our neighborhoods. We have five residences, single-family home, per acre. There's X amount of residences for multifamily condominium. This completely changes the PUD, and it will change the character of the neighborhood that I love and I've lived in for 21 years. This will create a traffic nightmare for the residents of Briarwood in addition to Waw4 which has a cult following similar to the Grateful Dead in music. If you're aware of places that have cult followings, Ive never seen anything like - the people that go to Wawa will drive five, I0 miles to go to Wawa. Th"y have the best sandwiches you could imagine for $5. They're going to be lined up, then you're going to have people from this apartment complex trying to cross Livingston Road to get to Wawa. It wasn't three years ago that we had somebody who was a resident of Maplewood trying to cross Radio Road to go to Circle K, and she was hit and killed by a car. You're going to create a public safety issue if this passes. Today I tried to exit my neighborhood on Radio Road. I work in Parkshore, so usually I'll take Livingston Road to Golden Gate Parkway. I tried to exit Radio Road. Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen, I could not get out of the neighborhood. When I was able to get out on Livingston Road and I was able to go west on Radio Road, traffrc was backed completely up. I was not aware that there is a charter school now at the intersection of Airport and Radio Road. So you have Wawa, Dunkin Donuts, a charter school. How much more traffrc are we going to try to put on a two-lane road? Shopping centers, they operate specific hours, maybe eight a.m. to eight p.m. You're talking about a Page 34 of 49 August ll,2017 project 365 days ayear,2417. You don't have the traffrc capacrty. I don't care what the staffrepoft says. Why don't you join me tomorrow at7:45 a.m., and let's see if we can get out on that road. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please don't applaud. We've got to continue the meeting with other speakers as well, so... Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Ross (sic) Berghuis followed by Cheryl Dampier. MR. BERGHUIS: Good moming. Last October I met with the developer of this apartment complex, Brett Boyd, with two other members of the association, property management association. At that time the number was 280 apartments, no swimming pool, affordable, no lake, just aparlments. Now it's up to 320. Subsequently, I have met with Chairman Strain and Commissioner Taylor about this project in opposition of it. I represent 585 families of Briarwood, and I think it's a mistake that you vote to let this through. Let me tell you why. Twenty to 25 percent of our annual operating income comes from rental income. Twenty-five units of 135 of the condos are rental -- annual rental units. Now, if they build this, those people are liable to go next door to the new apartment complex, which leaves a great financial strain on Briarwood which would lead to devaluating property values, investors who will probably bail out and sell for less to make the property values less, there's going to be more traffic and, financially, it's not a good idea for us, and it's going to increase our annual assessments. So, to me, I did some studying, and there's probably, within a half a mile radius of Briarwood -- and nobody's mentioning the fact that right outside of Briarwood gate - well, one lady did. Bill Spinelli has already been approvedfor 72 multi-level condo units. That's going to create more traffic. Now, if the traffrc from the Radio Road side goes over to the Livingston side on the exit route, there's only one lane out. Thafs going to back up traffic like you would not believe. Now, with the Waw4 with all -- like everybody else has said, there's probably, within that half-mile radius, 5-, 6,000 cars at leas! which is going to cause a major traffic backup. Same thing with Berkshire Lakes. Berkshire Lakes PUD originally, where the shopping plaza was -- is right now, is the same what Briarwood was. That was palt of the PUD to be a commercial plaza. Same thing what Briarwood's PUD is. Why can't we have that instead of the apartments, which it was intended to be? It worked for Berkshire Lakes. It started offslow, but look at it today. It's a growing concem. It makes a lot of money. And recently I did receive the letter from Mr. Yovanovich, and it was a stronghold type of letter. One day later I received a letter from Mr. Boyd detracting his statement, so why did he even send it in the first place? I mean, Briarwood's not going to be strongarmed by any developer or attomey. This is not the first time this has happened. Mr. Yovanovich's office sent me a letter way back when when Commissioner Taylor -- and Mark Strain was there at the same time - asked me to do a survey of how many people wanted these apartments. So, you know, I don't appreciate that strongarm tactic by anybody. I mean, in closing, put yourself in our shoes. You know, if you lived there, would you want this apartment complex next to you devaluating your property values, increasing your yearly assessments and whabrot? I don't think so. And with the traffic : and just take Foxfire right across the road. There's 600 aparhnents over there right close on the Radio Road side. Now you've got Maplewood, you've got Meadow Lakes, you've got all these other - you know, you've got Orchid Run. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. And I just want you to feel our plate in this process of not accepting this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Fred. MR. REISCHL: The final registered speaker is Cheryl Dampier. MS. DAMPIER: Hello. My name is Cheryl Kraus Dampier. I've lived in Briarwood on Dundee Court for -- since December of 1993. I bought one of the first models on model row. I've been there, I love it, and can you blame me? Look at my neighbors. Look at the research they Page 35 of49 August 17 ,20117 did, how prepared they are and how they've really come in and said almost everything that I'm going to say. So I'm going to keep this really short. I -- you know, the density, the traffic, I agree with their comments on that. One of the things -- and I'm just -- the script is totally gone. One of the things that was said, even by Bob Muller (sic), he says, we want to do something that makes sense. And as Russ just finished, to us this doesn't make sense. We purchased into a community with a PUD. We knew that that parcel was going to be commercial, and we embraced it and we liked it, and we want to keep it that way. There's not a lot of commercial in that area. And as was stated by one of my neighbors, this - presumably this same committee decided in the last few years that the industrial parcel where Wawa's going should be commercial. I'm assuming that the reason was that we needed more commercial. So now we want to take away the commercial that those of us in Briarwood have been sold and expecting and have wanted. Everyone has always said that they want to be able to walk up to the corner store, and we're still hoping that that is a possibility, andwe're hoping that you'll see that this proposal that's being brought to you today just really doesn't makes sense, especially for those of us in Briarwood. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who have not already spoken that would like to speak today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, Mr. Boyd, you'll have a chance for rebuttal when we finish with all of the other information we need. I would like to have the traffic department, Transportation Department, come forward for a couple questions. Then, Mr. Bosi, I'd like to ask you a GMP question after that. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, Id like some clarification on Radio Road. First of all, is there capacrty available on Radio Road in this segment of it for this? MR. SAWYER: Actually, there is. Right now I can tell you that our current AUIR, annual inventory, is indicating that we've got a level of service of C on Radio Road basically from Livingston to Santa Barbara as well as Airport to Livingston. Basically, the peak capacity that we've got on both of those road segments are 1,800. Their p.m. peak direction is east. The capacity that we currently have, the remaining capacity on Livingston to Santa Barbara, is 690 trips, and from Airport to Livingston we're at 677 trips. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: The - is Radio Road constrained? MR. SAWYER: It still has an - it's still at a level of service that we deem adequate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean constrained in the sense of improvements from an expansion. So can, for example -- the example was that for -- one gentleman said Radio Road can't be expanded. Is that a true statement or not? MR. SAWYER: I can tell you right now it's not on any of our long-range plans to -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's not what I asked. MR. SAWYER: As far as doing improvements, there are methods that we can do to improve all road segments, basically, even down to making intersection improvements such as we're currently looking at for Pine Ridge which we already know has failed. What we're looking at there are more different types of ways of managing intersections, which is where we have the most conflict points. As far as being able to actually improve Radio, in a traditional manner of adding lanes, it's going to be very, very difficult. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, please. We've got to finish asking the questions we need to before we go into further discussion. The traffrc that is proposed for this development, the applicant has done an analysis. It says it's less intense than a commercial shopping center. Now, they use different numbers. They used less numbers than the actual size that could be built. Page 36 of49 August 17,2017 Those less intensities, do you recall if it's peak times or generally throughout the day? MR. SAWYER: We actually look at both but principally for concurrency, which is what we're looking at for zoning, so that we're concurrent with the GMP, we look at p.m. peak. That's what the rules say we look at; that's what we use. In this particular case, we looked at the numbers that were prepared in the TIS and looked at it as being very conservative. They could easily put into the TIS a larger number of square footage than they did. They use 100,000 square feet. They could have actually gone, I believe, already, 139,000 square feet. So that in and of itself brought the number down. But we're already - the multifamily that's being proposed has a much less -- a much lower trip count than you do for commercial, especially in the p.m. peak. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that part -- now, I know the GMP and the zoning reevaluation that applies to this particular project, it's been zoned commercial for 4l years, so it precedes our GMP. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: For that reason, when the GMP was created, they made exceptions for these odd pieces of commercial where we don't -- at that time the GMP said we don't want these like this. We want them concentrated on activity centers. This is not an activity center? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And, Fred, I know the answer, but let Mike answer it. I wanted to make sure everybody understands what we're dealing with. Okay. So because it's not an activity center and the GMP comes into play and says we're trying to discourage commercial in non-activiff centers, but those that exist we have to give them an exception to continue operating. But we do encourage them to convert to residential. Is that generally what's happening here as to how the residential came about in regards to its density and its allowance -- are you aware ofl MR. SAWYER: I would believe that that would be correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the same question I want Mr. Bosi, as the head of Comp Planning, to acknowledge or discuss, at least, in a minute. MR. SAWYER: He would be a far better source than me for the Comp Plan. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but I'm looking at it from traffic through you. MR. SAWYER: Certainly - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from your eyes the residential will have a less impact on the traffic if either residential or commercial was built on this property. Inevitably, one will be. Regardless, the residential, as proposed today, is less than the commercial that could be built there at its maximum value of 139,000? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's what I needed to know. And, with tha! I'd like Mike to come up and address the comp planning issues. MR. BOSI: Good morning, again. Mike Bosi, Planning andZoningDirector. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, you know, this project was originally zoned in the'70s, and it's been around for over 40 years. That commercial comer's been there for quite some time. There's been various attempts to have it utilized. The commercial component preceded the GMP, as you heard me say. As a result, it's there because of an exception. And I remember reading the Comprehensive Planning memo or one of the discussions that the exception provides incentivization to convert from commercial, which we don't generally encourage at a location like this in the current GMP, to something else, and I think in this case it encourages the residential. Is that all tme? Can you shed some light on how all that came about? MR. BOSI: Yes. And when we adopted the current GMP was in 1989, and the current GMP concept for the location of commercial locations were our mixed-use activity centers, the location of the confluence ofthe intersections ofour collector and arterial roads. But we did recognize that there was a lot of strip commercial zoningthat was outside of the prescribed location, and we couldn't take those rights away. So they were allowed to stay, and they're deemed consistent by policy. Within the GroMh Management Plan and the Future Land Use Element we have a density rating Page37 of49 August 17,2017 system for how you gain the number of units that are available for any one portion of land We recognized that those commercial -- strip commercial zoning, those outliers outside of those activity centers weren't consistent, but we couldn't take those rights away. But what we wanted to do was we wanted to encourage the transition of those non-consistent commercial locations to residential development. So we allocated the conversion of commercial density to residential density eligibility for 16 units per acre. That's the maximum number of units that our Future Land Use Element and our density rating system would allow for. So what we're saying is, the desire to locate the commercial at the activity centers were strong enough that we want to discourage those noncompliant and we want to provide an incentivization to convert those commercial to residential, and we're utilizing that incentivization, meaning you're eligible to ask up to 16 units per acre for that conversion specifically to try to eliminate some of those non-consistent commercial locations, and that's the scheme that was adopted by our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can tell Patrick's going to ask you the question, and I can tell he's been tuming his head, so he's probably thinking, well, you're saying l6 units per acre, but this project is being recommended for approval at20. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why? MR. BOSI: Well, the way that we would look at this project is we look at the entire PUD. We look at the entire PUD, and there were two different methodologies towards how you can get to a total number of units that would be eligible for this - for the amendment. One is looking atjust the straight total acreages for the entire PIID, which I believe is about 209 acres. Because it has access to two arterial roadways, you could be -- you're eligible for five units per acre, and that five units per acre would put you over the above (sic) number of units that would be requested, or you could go with the existing - the existing residentially designated area, which I believe is 189 units per acre, utilize that at five units per acre, but then the 16 units or the I 5 .99 is eligible for conversion of commercial as I had suggested at 16 units per acre, and that would get you even a higher number of units for eligibility. So we always look at the PUD as a whole, but the density allocations could be on a parcel or project-by-proj ect basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, thank you. I always appreciate your in-depth knowledge. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of staffor the presenter or anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, we'll go to rebuttal. Richard, I don't know who on your team wants to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Im going to just address a couple points, and then Mr. Boyd wants to get back up here and address some of the market conditions points. And I don't normally -- I don't normally address comments from the public, but in this particular case I think we need to talk a little bit about the history. Two things were pointed out already by Mr. Bosi that I think are important. One, under the Comprehensive Plan today we're supposed to be residential, and there was - Mike explained how we're supposed to convert that at 16 units per acre to entice us not to build commercial where commercial's not intended to go under our Comprehensive Plan. So we're consistent 100 percent with the Comprehensive Plan that is before you today. Regarding - and I'll be honest with you, I forgot about the provision that you get an extra unit per acre by having access on two, basically, major roads. So the Comprehensive Plan even says that this specific piece of property is supposed to be -- instead of the four base, we can go to five. So from a density standpoint, it's intended to have a higher density on this property than other properties in Collier County. So your staffwould not have found us consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if we weren't consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 38 of49 August 17 ,2017 Now, there was a corrunent about a letter I wrote to Mr. Berghuis early on, and I feel like I need to tell you why I wrote the letter. He went out to survey the residents of Briarwood with two options. Do you want the man cave back, which is the project that ultimately was killed by the residents of Briarwood, or do you want an affordable housing with no amenities to be built on this site? And what I simply said to him is, you are not telling your residents the accurate truth about the proposed project. The proposed project has always been a market-rate project with resort-style amenities to serve this community. And I said, you need to tell them the truth when you go out and do this survey. That's the letter I wrote. I'm happy to provide copies of that letter to him saying you need to do it. You need to do it right if you're going to ask your residents about a survey. I don't know what ultimately happened with the survey; never seen the results. Don't know if he ever went out and surveyed what we really are trying to do with the residents. That's what happened when I wrote him that previous letter. And I just wanted that to be clear on the record. We have always been willing to meet with the community. We did two voluntary open houses and a thfud NIM that was the offrcial NIM to get input and have continually revised the project. We're 100 percent consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Boyd's going to explain to you about vacancies and how apartment complexes work. He's the person who knows the real data on the rental markets. I don't think anybody here has represented that they're an expeft in rental communities and how apartment complexes run. Mr. Boyd is. And with tha! I'm going to tum it over to Mr. Boyd, and we can answer any other questions you may have. MR. BOYD: For the record, Brett Boyd. I understand the frustrations; I empathize. I just want to be able to tell the Board that there was some additional capacity there. We thought this site functioned -- or would function successfully at 320 units. There was more capacity out there for density. I'm not trying to -- I'm not trying to put 500 units there or 400 units there because it's available. We're trying to make it a nice balance of what can work successfully at this location. There's 560 parking stalls. I just wanted to convey that. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was a question earlier. MR. BOSI: Just a couple global things. Operationally, for apartments, the number of vacancies that you all called about, which are good phone calls to make -- I make those phone calls, too; my feasibility people do; my project managers make those phone calls. But the county just spent a lot of money with the Urban Land Institute, and their vacancy rate in Collier County is less than 2 percent. It's less than2 percent. A lot of these vacancies you hear about or that you called about, those are typically the turnover. You're just going to get people that have a one-year lease, and you have a tumover, and there's a time period before you get it leased up. That's, operationally, what - the numbers you're hearing. But overall, there's a reason why Mr. Strain had talked about a number of multifamily units here, because there's a big demand. There's just not enough supply in Collier County. There's not enough places for people to live here. So, globally - I know it may not be of interest to you all to have multifamily right here, but for the community at large it is a benefit. There is a demand. There's a -- with vacancy less than 2 percent - typically across the country we use a 6 percent vacancy factor. That's normal. Here it's less than2 percent. The other issue is commercial development. Just - it's just the factor of what's happening in today's time. They're saying - you probably read recently that20 or 30 percent of all the malls in the next five or l0 years are going to close. You know, you're seeing there's another shopping center in Naples right now, in Collier County, that's looking at a conversion. They're going to tear down the shopping center possibly and build apartments. I think those are for-sale product. But these are things that are happening. And this is what the Urban Land Institute study said. These are experts from around the country that you have to look to some of these tired shopping centers and, unfortunately, that's the way things are today. And I'm used to, like you are, going to a store and buying Page 39 of49 August 17,2017 things. And, you know, my college kids, they're ordering things on Amazon. It's just the way things work today. And we make our adjustments in this business. They've got these 2417 receiving rooms where the FedEx and UPS trucks -- and they actually have a place where the residents can have storage for their packages that come in, and it's available to them in a climate-controlled room, and we even have air-conditioned rooms for perishable items that they order. And I don't understand that at all. But I -- you know, you go to the grocery store, you bring it back to the refrigerator, but that's the new generation. That's what they're doing. So, anyway, I just wanted to parlay a couple of things there at least with the vacancy factor in the county. This is a -- the Urban -- don't trust me. You can look at this, you know, expert report that was done by these people from around the country that did an analysis, and there's a need. That's kind of a global thing that is needed in this county, and as far as the commercial development. But thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if that wraps up the presenter's rebuttal -- I can see heads nodding yes - I have one now additional question of Mr. Sawyer, if you don't mind coming up, Mike. It's a follow-up on one of the questions about the parking. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The site plan that was previously shown to us was about the -- I think he said 560. It actually was 573. I just found it. In that 573, there are 98 spaces that are in garages, so that brings it - so if you take 100 offthag you're around 575, something like that - or 475 for actual parking spaces outside a garage. The open parking space is shown on the plan for -- that was approved for Lowe's was 480 parking spaces. Does transportation -- and maybe Norm looked at it this way or not. Does transportation consider the duration of a need for a parking space in how it looks at the haffic flow? For example, a Lowe's will operate about 15, 16 hours a day. Traffic will come in during their peak hours, modulate during the day. And when I'm there, I go in and I stay in for a really long time. So mine will be like a residence. But residences would then cerLainly occupy their parking spaces for a different time frame. They wouldn't be coming and going as much, I would assume. Do you take that into consideration in your traffrc studies and what you predict for peak times and other times for traffic for each one of these types of uses? MR. SAWYER: We do. The ITE basically gives dif[erent rates for different types of uses, and those uses are going to fluctuate depending on what that actual use is. In other words, you're correct, a Lowe's is going to have a lower a.m. peak but a higher p.m. peak; whereas, residential, you're going to be having possibly a more even distribution because people are generally going to work and then coming back again. Now, generally speaking, you're going to have a longer peak, if you will, in the morning because we tend to have people starting earlier and later when they're going to work; however, most people are more concentrated in the evening. That's why we look at the p.m. peak as being more critical when we're looking -- and that's -- and that's why, when we're looking for consistency with the GMP, that's what we look at is principally only p.m. peak. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Generally, the people that live in homes will work -- they work in -- some work in shifts. Not all shifts are daltime. So the idea that some of these units will have cars coming and going in offhours because of odd shifts would actually help distribute the parking -- the traffic more evenly on the road system as well? MR. SAWYER: Definitely, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That's all I've got. I - thank you. MR. SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anybody they want to ask before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At this point we'll close the public hearing, and we'll go in for discussion before entertaining a motion from the Planning Commission. So with that in mind, any of you got anything you want to talk about as far as what you've heard here Page 40 of 49 August 17,2017 today before a motion is made? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would like to say something. Last year, yourre right, you did have a choice of the man cave, which you would have never known was there. You keep saying you want commercial; you want restaurants. We have strip malls that are absolutely vacant. And this is not a good comer for that, I mean, especially now with Wawa. You've got Peppers. I don't know what else -- no matter what seems to be going on in this property, there are certain people that do not want anything here except their restaurants and their little hardware store. It isn't going to happen. So I -- we don't know what to do to satisfo you, but this is -- I thought the man cave was perfect for your corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: I'm not sure what motion will be made, so it can either be a motion for denial or a motion for recommendation for approval. If the approval is, I would suggest some stipulations, and I made notes as this discussion occurred today. We did ask for some textual changes to the PUD which normally comes back to us and we review it on consent. In addition, some of the bigger items we talked about was that there be no interconnection to the existing community; that there be at least an 8 - there be an 8-foot masonry wall along the common PUD boundary between the lake tract to the east and Skelly Road. There will be a new exhibit added to the PUD that will show the cross-section. And, Richard, you're getting up for a reason? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had said six feet. I don't know if you were changing -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: I know you said six feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wantto make sure you had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I said eight. So ifthe motion's made,I'm suggesting, if it's motion for approval, it would be eighg not six, just in that piece that borders the residential. Okay. They're going to add a new PUD exhibit for, I think it was, ,{3 or something, show the cross-section of the other buffer to the residential. Both buffers will include, now, tables showing us what the enhancements are, because it's been a statement but not defined. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, before you get too far along, can I ask, on the wall you said adjacent to residential. Did you mean all the residential boundaries or just where residential currently exists? CHAIRMAN STRAN: I said between the lake tract to the east, which is over there by -- to the east of the lower south side, and up to Skelly Road. MR. REISCHL: Up to Skelly. MR. MULFIERE: Yeah. It's, like, Tract B l. We'll look at the plat but that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to show -- if this comes back - if the recommendation is for approval, this will come back on consen! and we'll verifo it then. MR. MULI{ERE: We'll show it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; Access points will be gated. A complete PUD would be provided bythe time of consent. The minimum principal setback to the Dover Parc parcel to the east and northeast would be 50 feet. There will be some language to indicate cost sharing of the lakes. The existing conditions that deal with Skelly Road and its cutoffwill be confirmed as to whether you need some flexibility to deal with it or staffsays it doesn't need to be deal (sic) with. There will be no access for this project to residents to the community facilities, in particular the recreational facility that you've said you're not going to be part of. The palette of plants that Mark Templeton has worked out with Bob Mulhere will be provided as part of the PUD. There will be - the buildings themselves will be a masomy construction with tile roofs, and they'll have electric vehicle charging stations in the garages. The minimum size unit will be 750 square feet. The development will pay its proportional share of water management system. Page 4l of 49 August 11,2017 There will be - the fill taken offsite will not exceed that allowed by the LDC. The garages that are shown on the plan will be enclosed. There's a paragraph in the PUD that needs to be modified concerning accessories parlicular to this site, and you will show the location of the dumpsters' enclosures at the time of consent. And I would suggest those be as far away from existing residential as they possibly can be. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may. I didn't hear you, and you may have said it. The 50-foot setback was for principal strucfures, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes,I did - thought I said it. I read it, and it says -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't hear it, but I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is principal structures. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then I think the offsite fill is no longer in the LDC. It's in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Good point. Yeah. We did have it, and we moved it just so we can be confusing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that's the stipulations in case there's a motion of approval. So I'll tum now to the rest of this panel for any comments, and then -- MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, another one that I may have missed by writing down previous ones, you said garages enclosed. Does that mean garage doors also, or can three sides -- is that considered enclosed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about the sides facing the outside of the property. But garage doors, are you intending garage doors? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Reischl, these are real garages, so they'll be garage doors. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So with that, is there a motion from this panel? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I move we approved the project with the stipulations that you put forth. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Stan, seconded by Karen. Any fuither discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: All those in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Opposed. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 4-1. Thank you, all. We're going to take a recess for lunch and come back and deal with our LDC amendment, and we'll come -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're clearly coming back for consent? CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're clearly coming back for consent, yes. Is there a motion made for the consent? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to come back on consent. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, sigrifu by sayng aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. Page 42 of 49 August 17,2017 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMI.AK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you for that reminder. Everybody, we'll be back at one o'clock. Fifty-five minutes for lunch, and we'll talk about LDC. (A lunch recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. You have a live mike. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present; here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're missing -- well, wait a minute. Here comes the County Attorney's representative. So as long as he's here, we're good to go. But we're also missing Stan and Tom Eastman, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And we're missing Nicole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to have to hold off. Let's just wait five minutes. Because we left at 12:05. Maybe they think it's one hour. So we'll wait till 1:05 to resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Everybody, now that Stan's here, we can resume our meeting. We had a quorum, but it's not the same without you, Stan. So the next item up, and the only remaining item on today's agenda, is 9C, which is a continuation of the discussion of the Land Development Code standard for preservation and offsite preserves. And we will - Jeremy had supplied a new version to us with our packet based on our direction from last meeting. And in reading that, something came to light that maybe we need to discuss a little further, and I'm hoping - I asked Jeremy to be prepared to discuss it, and that's the fact that we have a GMP that says we will provide some means for offsite, and by eliminating it at all, we're inconsistent then, with the GMP and, as a result we would have to modifi the GMP. So in order to avoid that, maybe some minimal offsite in cases where there's conditions or criteria that are me! we can accoflrmodate it both as an administrative possibility and as a - maybe a deviation or variance, depending on the need. And with that in mind, Jeremy, why don't we move ahead with what you've got in front of us today. MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frwr[ for the record, LDC Manager. I don't have a huge presentation, but - and you kind of covered some of the things I was going to talk about. So, really, I think if you want to add to this amendment or maybe modifu some of the things that we're removing, we carl walk through that section by section. The version that we gave to you today is just removing that offsite vegetation. So I think what lll do is use the packet from the July 20th meeting just so it's a little easier to see what we currently have, and we cal modifo it. We can talk about what kind of changes we need using that. I think for today -- you know, we won't be able to all write this amendment together and finish it today. So if we get some direction, some concepts that you want to add into this amendment we can come back to your next meeting with a completed draft and hopefully finish up this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and my discussion or comments were just as a result of reading your analysis, and I want to tell you thank you. Your analysis was greatly appreciated. I'm also just opening it up for discussion in this panel because getting into the GMP on this matter probably isn't a good thing to do, especially if there are conditions that are justifiable. And we can limit it to 21 ,7 80 square feet; that might work, and I said that because that's half an acre. But I'd rather have it stated as 21,780 square feet. And the reason for that is it makes people realize just how big that is. That's five times the size of a normal house in Collier County or more. And if we provide criteria for that to happen both as an administrative deviation and then when the criteria's not met but there's still a request to do that it could be a deviation or variance more formally, and then the monetary payment could be tied to purely a square-foot basis based on a per-acre basis of the AUI& Page 43 of49 August 17 ,2017 and don't mess with all the endowment stuffjust because it's too small to mess with. I think that would get us to a point where we're no fuither in conflict with the GMP, and we could then get this done without having to disrupt the GMP. And I'm throwing it out to all of you to consider and Jeremy to comment on to see ifthat seems like a viable option to go forward with. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. You know, I mentioned in our discussion earlier that as long as we meet those three elements that I outlined in the memo that are in the GMP, whatever the shape of this amendment, it works for us. So as long as we're meeting those requirements to have the native vegetation offsite program to allow for a deviation through a public process and an administrative deviation, that covers our bases from the GMP perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and that's probably -- I mean, other than that, that was the only thing I thought was problematic after that point was brought out. Does anybody else have any issues that -- or any disagreement with that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So no land donation; just monetary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just monetary. So if you have a -- say you've got a quarter of an acre, or let's say a half acre, 21,780 square feet, and we have a -- we know the per-acre basis. It's going to be in the AUIR. So we can back out the square-foot cost. So even if they come in with 10,000 square feet we know what the cost would be. They make that donation to the Conservation Collier, or whatever program we differentiate, which will probably be Conservation Collier, then it's done. And we can look at it administratively for certain things that are almost, I should call them, non-problematic. And then if they don't meet those criteria but they still want it offsite, they have to justifo it through a deviation or a variance. Does that -- that sounds - at least we're trying to -- we're keeping away from the GMP change and making it more consistent with what previously was done as far as the GMP requested. I mean - that's what I'm suggesting. I don't know if - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So we always have the ability to say not off site? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it's administrative and they meet the criteria. For example, essential services. Essential services would be able to come in, say, this is an essential service, here's why it's essential service; therefore, we're waiving the half acre, or 2 1 ,000, whatever percentage of what they need. And that's how I - that's the suggestion to get around the GMP issue, because I don't think that's one we want to broach. And I appreciate you for pointing that out Jeremy. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So I can put the provisions up on the overhead so we can just kind of quickly walk through that and make sure everyone's on the same page and then go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Sure. Okay. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So what we're looking at here - this is the draft that you all received for this week, so we had removed this section and included a prohibition just to -- you know, it kind of starts offon the same page. So what we'll do is add to this, not in terms of the applicability and some of the other sections that we had before, but more in terms of deviations and administrative deviations, and we'll add those provisions in separately. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Now, can you still leave the word "prohibition" in in excess of a half acre? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. ln order to -- in order to eliminate the ability to ask for a deviation above that, we would have to prohibit above that point. So that - there will still be some form of a prohibition in that kind of a draft. So this is going back to our July 20th amendment. And just to kind of quickly scroll through this. You know, we had purpose and intent the applicability, we laid out a couple of situations where the offsite preserves are allowed. This section would be modified not to think so much as applicability as when a deviation is allowed, and I think -- if I understand correctly, deviations would be allowed up to half an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21,780 square feet. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. That sounds better. So that would - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is half an acre, but when we write it down that way, I think it's more recognizable as a Iarge -- it's not a small piece of land; 21,000 square feet's big. MR. FRANTZ: And so that would become more of a deviation section. Page 44 of 49 August 17,2017 The next section that currently exists is this exceptions section. And thinking of administrative deviations, this might be a good section to apply -- to allow for administrative deviations rather than thinking of it as exceptions. So as you said, if you have an essential service facility or maybe affordable housing project those are the types of projects that we would allow for offsite administratively. So we could use this as kind of a model for that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like it. MS. ASFilON-CICKO: I'd prefer not to do administrative deviations, though. I'd rather have it be exemptions or exceptions, because if you're going to - CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think - doesn't the GMP require three standards? That's why I was thinking -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, then, if there's administrative deviations, then there just has to be criteria -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- so that it's black and white. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That was the direction. MR. FRANTZ: What I had in mind was we also have -- for Immokalee we have an interim deviations sections, and it calls them interim deviations but -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: They're permanent now. MR. FRANTZ: Tltey're permanent, and they achieve those deviations just through the SDP. And so it's kind of a form of administrative deviations. And I think we'd kind of model - model it offof that process, if that works for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. I think it does. MR. FRANTZ: Next we had the PUD deviations section. Again, we're looking at the July 20th packet. This would be modified to, as we said, prohibit deviations above the half acre; 21,000 square feet. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: After that we have prohibitions. I think these can stay. This was identifying, specifically, habitats that we want to remain on site. So, I mean, that would be my suggestion but of course, it's up to you all. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. I think we're on the right track. MR. FRANTZ: Beyond that, it gets to the -- excuse me, the off-site alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But you wouldn't need any of that. You'd simply have on a square-foot basis based on the last AUIR between urban and rural. MR. FRANTZ: Right. It would be kind of a modification ofthe first of the monetary payment alternative, so we'lljust take out the additional elements of that payment. It would just be based on the AUIR. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice the current AUIR doesn't break it down for urban and rural. It breaks it down for community and regional. MR. FRANTZ: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If there's a better way to look at a cost basis, then maybe you can suggest that. I was -- I forgot that we had -- in the past I believe we had two values, but sometime along the road it seems to have changed to community and regional and not gotten into different sectors of the are4 so... MR. FRANTZ: Well, the way that we had it forthis draft was we had looked at the costs of purchases for the Conservation Collier program and then used the same ratio of rural to urban lands but if that -- if we want to go a different direction, then we can discuss that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, the AUIR's asterisk defining where they used -- or got their numbers from for those values came from the impact fee study. I would rather use a study like that - MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's more or less a consultant's analysis than an internal process that just uses added-up and divided numbers. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I'm not super familiar with that study offthe top of my head, so I don't know exactly what kind of guidance that would give us, but we can look to that and -- Page 45 of49 August 17,201'7 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know for sure either, but I'm suggesting that would have a better evaluation, at least probably a better way to go than internally. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We can go that route. The next part of that section was the land donation alternative. I think you've talked about, today, removing that section. And the last part of this section is just kind of a note for how this section is processed for PUDs. And just offthe top of my head, I think that that section can stay, but we'll analyze that as we get through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: So if everyone's on the same page about those kinds of changes, I think, you know, probably staffshould take some time to draft that up and circulate it amongst ourselves and make sure that we're covering all our bases, and we can bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is that something you feel comfortable with on the 7th of September, or do you want to do a different meeting? MR. FRANTZ: I think that we can do September 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If it changes, just let us know; we can move it to the 21st. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah, I believe we'll have to readveftise just because of the length of time we're taking for this amendment. So probably try and, sooner rather than later, make sure that we can meet that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we may have someone who wants to speak on the matter. If we do, if you're here, please come on up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: She's been here since nine. MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know there's not much happening in the environmental world if they can sit here all moming long waiting for this. MS. JOHNSON: I know. I know. Just wasting the time away. Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I -- you know, I really appreciated the suggestion at your last meeting to go ahead and just remove the ability to go offsite but, you know, in talking about Jeremy, I think that getting into a Comp Plan change could be more difficult than worthwhile. So, like the direction that you're going. I think identifoing the square footage and maybe identifying how many houses that would allow you to build in that -- what was ig 21,000 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21,780 square feet. MS. JOHNSON: Yeah - so that you have an idea ofjust what that allows you, I think that would be very important because, you're right, a half acre sounds really tiny, but when you look at the actual area, it's pretly expansive. So, like where you're going with the half acre and very much supporl making sure that deviations above that are prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and I think she's suggesting, though, that when you compare it to the size of a standard house, how many times, like, five standard homes or whatever, you do that in the staff report, not the LDC. MS. JOHNSON: fught, right. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah. I wanted to just clarifr that typically the oflsite process doesn't allow for, like, additional density or any,thing like that, so we can kind of describe that as a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: - I guess, depiction of, like, the size of the area that we're allowing. MS. JOHNSON: tught. Just -- CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Or even this room. It would be good for people reading it to say, how big is 2l -half acre. Well, it's 21,000 squzre -- how big is that? Well, I don't know how big this room is, but it's probably 20 times the size of this room or something like that. So all that helps put it in a context that you can understand it. You can see it better in your mind. And it's not as small as it sounds. It's a pretty good-sized piece of propefty, so... Page 46 of 49 August 17,2017 MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, that's a suggestion. Anything else, Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: No. That's it. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody from Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a lot happening in the environmental world. It's just that it happens so slowly. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So by the time it happens, we're all gone and the next people have got to deal with it, like climate change and sea level rise, right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going on atangent here. Okay. Well, Jeremy, is that enough direction for you to finish up? MR. FRANTZ: I think so. And we'll come back on the 7th with those elements enumerated a little bit more and make sure that we've got all your concerns covered. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And if that date needs to be pushed a little big we're fme. We've got a meeting on the 2lst anyway. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, sir. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the -- that's the last advertised public hearing we have. We do have no new business. Old business; I just want to remind everybody, I haven't forgotten that we have to have an update. And, Mike, as a reminder for yoq at some point we need to schedule a sea level rise report, as discussed last time, and we also have to get a report on feedback on the requested NIM change for Ned's request there. MR. BOSI: And we were waiting for the -- we knew that Mr. Fryer was not going to be at this, but we are most cerlainly prepared at the - we can address it on the 7th, our discussion about - with DSAC related to the NIM proposal and the suggestions that they provided. We can give an update to the Planning Commission. It was the discussion of whether we were going to -- first it was a proposal by - Mr. Fryer had indicated that he had some trouble following the transcripts, and he wanted to propose an LDC amendment that was going to require the speakers to identifu which party they were with when they're representing the developer to be able to clarifo where commitments were made and to follow along the dialogue a little bit better. That conversation evolved into whether transcripts would be -- should or would be required of the meeting. And Jeremy and I spoke with DSAC at their August meeting on the idea; we got some feedback, and we'll be ready to discuss it with the Planning Commission on -- we can add it -- I can coordinate witJr Judy to add it to the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when Mr. Fryer's here. MR. BOSI: Yes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And whenever you guys are ready. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I won't be here. MR. BOSI: We'll get you a full transcript of the meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yeah. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That takes us past the old business. Anybody have anything else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we can't discuss this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not without Ned here. Which - COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. Whatyoujust - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can discuss anything atthis point. We're still not - COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Being this is old, I have been to these NIM meetings, a lot of Page 47 of 49 August 17,2017 them. It's the equipment that they bring with them. On a lot of these it's nothing more than, like, a little phone. And when you have a room this big, there is no way. And I did ask Mr. Yovanovich, I believe, because he has a lot of them, if they could bring some good equipment along, you know, and I think that can -- that can save a lot of the problems that we're having with that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I think at the same time, Ned's position was that unless the speakers got up and identified, even with the audio, there would be no way of knowing who they were compared to being the developer's team or the private team. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't necessarily disagree with him on that point, but I don't know how we make that happen unless we formalize the meeting more. And if we formalize the meeting more, we may be defeating the purpose of a NIM, which is supposed to be informal so they can have conversations with the neighborhood about what their project's about. But that's something we all need to consider when Ned gets back, and I'm sure that Mike's going over that with the DSAC folks and we'll get -- MR. BOSI: That was sort of -- that was part of the discussion point, that very point that you raised, Mark. So, yes, I'll be prepared -- we'll be prepared, and - COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll talk to you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think you're making too many rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. We do tendto overregulate. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Most likely these people probably won't talk at all when they want to if you're going to, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of the concern. MR. BOSI: Another point that was raised by DSAC. So we're going to -- we'll be prepared to address all the diflerent issues were that raised. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But rather than have a free-for-all, maybe if you made them just get up to a podium where there's a calnera pointed at them and a speaker. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Geez. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, seriously. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, that's justthe opposite of where -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: What does it take to -- you know, a GoPro or something like that. I'm not talking about -- I'm talking about, you know, a little camera where you record the meeting, you record who talks, and that way you don't have people yelling things from the audience -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- because that's really where everlthing gets screwed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Stan, I understand. I just got to make sure we put it in the context of what the intension was of a NIM as a reach-out to the neighborhood and an informal basis so they can all talk around a roundtable format and get their ideas on the floor. We have people that come into these meetings, when you have to go up before a speaker and they know you're on camera who have a hard time addressing everybody. I think that's the opposite -- the opposite of what a NIM was supposed to be. It was supposed to be informal. So it's just a discussion we will have at our next meeting then, and we can kind of see where everybody's thoughts are on it, so... MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, in talking with Mr. Fryer, my understanding is that he wanted the agents to identifo themselves for the developer and not necessarily the public. He wasn't saying the public needed to identify themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In my conversations with him, anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't realize there was a differentiation there between the two. So anybody that wouldn't identif themselves is then considered -- assumed to be the public? MS. ASilON-CICKO: Yeah. He wanted the agents for the applicant the expefts, to say who was speaking before they spoke. Page 48 of 49 August 17,2017 CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because don't -- in reading the NIMs, you also bring up the fact a lot of times that this is what you committed to at the NIM. So that's important to have the agent's name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. We'll talk about it on the 7th then, if that's okay with everybody. And with that, any other public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAN: By Diane. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. All in favor, sigliff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here; 5-0. Thankyou. ******* There being no further business for the good of the Countlr, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair atl.'24 p.m. COLLIER COLINTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board o, tO - t- I ? , as presented / orascorrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERzu LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 49 of 49