Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/16/2017TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF TT{E COLLIER COI.-]NTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 16,2017 November 16,2017 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 Government Complex, East Naples, Florid4 with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, ZonngManager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attomey Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page I of69 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., NOVEMBER 16, 2017, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-October 5,2017 and October 19,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the October 19,2017 CCPC meeting: A. PL20160002748: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-23, as amended,the Livingston Village PUD, to modify provisions relating to street tree standards.The subject PUD property consists of 148.98± acres, located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one mile south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 29 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] B. PL20160002360: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to remove the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict from the Urban Commercial District and to add the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed-Use Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed- Use District,to allow up to 375 multi-family residential dwelling units and 275,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial development, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 31 acres and located at the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner,AICP,Principal Planner] C. PL20160001100: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series by changing the designation of property from Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, to Urban Commercial District, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial uses; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18.6± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] D. PL20160001089: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Logan/Immokalee CPUD, to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial uses, for property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,consisting of 18.6±acres;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp November 15,2017 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAN: Everybody, good morning. Welcome to the November 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. 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? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONEREBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Mr. Schmitt had notified me. He had a prior commitment, so he has an excused absence. Next item up is the addenda to the agenda. I've got one item I want to clarifr for this moming, and then I'll turn to Ray, see if there's anything else. 9,{ is a PDI. It had come originally to my office. I was requested to move it to the Board - to the Planning Commission, so that's why it's here today. And because it was originally at my office, I cannot sit here during its process, and I'll be sitting in the audience for that one, and Karen will take over. Ray, do you have anything else? Any other changes? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our December 7th meeting has been canceled. There's no issues for December 7th, so our next meeting will be December 2l st. Since that's close to the holidays, I've got to make sure we have a quorum. Anybody know if they're not going to make it on December 2lst? Patrick's not, okay. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: I'm not sure yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not sure yet? Okay. Well, still good with everybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: yeah. I don't know. My family's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your family's h-ere, Well, bring thern. They can fill up the empty seats. Ifthey disagree with you, I'm sure they'll have fun for the holidays.- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. chaiq I will not be here. I'm sorryr.CHAIRMAN the horidays, so I don,t have a quorum, we're good. Hopefully -- it's close to coMMrssro .;tf:l;t" ln good condition?CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, you're making the assumption"that you're alwuys in good condition tostart with, so... COMMISSIONER FRyER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think maybe we moved faster than I was aware of with respect toapproving the agenda. I'd like to add two items of old business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 2 of 69 November 16,2011 COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I could describe them now orjust bring them up - CHAIRMANSTRAIN: Ithink--yeah,ifit'soldbusiness,justsostaffcouldbereadyifwehavea break to respond to anything you might need, what were the two issues? COMMISSIONER FRYER: They're both brief status reports. And even if the status is "nothing is going on," I want to keep the matters in front of us, and that's why I'm putting it on the agenda under old business. The first one has to do with the NIM matter, and the second has to do with the native vegetation preservation matter. I think in both cases staffwas asked to take a look at some things. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We'll see what kind of updates we have when we get to that point, but thank you. So that takes us to approval of the minutes. Electronically we were supplied with two sets. We'll do the first one which is October 5th, 2017. If there are no changes, is there a recommendation from someone for approval? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. AII those in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- there are six of us -- 6-0 today. The next one of them is the October 19th set of minutes. Same request. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. All those in favor, sigrrifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Okay. That takes us to BCC report and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. During the November 14th Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board approved on their summary agenda the Buckley PUD amendment; that was approved on their summary agend4 and then the Cleary was approved 5-0 subject to Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Buckley was the PDI, not a PUDA, right? Buckley. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I think -- yeah, that was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a PDI, okay. Okay. Thankyou. Okay. That takes us to -- I don't have anything for chairman's report today, and there are no consent agenda items. +t+So the first item up in which lll turn - I'll read it, and then I'll turn it over to Karen, is Item PL20160002748. It's the Livingston Village PUD insubstantial change. It's on the east side of Livingston Road, and it's also known as Marbella. Page 3 of69 November 16,2017 All those wishing to testifu on behalf of this item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CI{AIRMAN STRAN: And then disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. With that, I'll tum it over to Karen, and I'll move back up as soon as this one's furished. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Bob? MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. I'm trying not to break the equipment right now. Bob Mulhere, for the record, with Hole Montes, here on behalf of the applicant this morning. Also with me this moming is Jennifer Pazzis (phonetic), who is president of the homeowners association. If you have some questions that I feel I can't answer, I'm going to defer to Jennifer. There are a couple of residents or several residents here, too, that will certainly speak if necessary, but we'll go along the presentation and see how things go. This is -- the PUD's Livingston Lakes, also known as Livingston Village, also known as Marbella Lakes. I imagine you know where it is. I have an exhibit here that I can share with you to kind of show you the overall picture, as soon as I find it. That's what I'm looking for. Again, I'm sure you generally know where that is but, for the public, you can see that it's located right offof Livingston. Kind of a rectangular-shaped parcel. It's fu lly developed. The topic today or the issue today deals with a requirement in the PUD for street trees which, while that probably was a very good idea" there have been some unintended consequences associated with those street trees. We've worked with staffextensively over the last six or seven months - and everything got delayed with Irma -- to come up with some language the staffcould support. I want to show you some pictures in addition to the one that's on the visualizer right now. This is a representative example of where the street trees are planted, and the right-of-way line runs right here, and then there's a 1O-foot drainage and utility easement that actually extends another 10 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. This is about a 4-foot clear area from the edge of the sidewalk all within the right-of-way. And you can see as you look down that those street trees are planted both very close to the driveway and very close to the sidewalk and run actually within the HOA common area utility easement. There's a typical lot line or lot plan here. And that just shows you the dimensions; the 50-foot right-of-way, the sidewalk, the 4-foot area, and then the 10-foot utility easement within which the street trees are planted. Ijusthave - I have acouple - hello. Ihave acouple of otherpictures that Ijustwanted to show you. That kind of shows you how close the street trees are planted. There are some trees within the common area as well, but all of them are within the utility easement or very close to the sidewalk, and they're very close to one another as well. ln the narrative I summarized the issues. Many of the trees, unfortunately, were planted without the root barrier. Now, as it furns out today, there's some discussion about whether root barriers are even functionally appropriate because they tend to keep the root system more shallow. They don't get to extend as far, and there's some question as to whether that contributes to these trees going down in a storm event or a high wind event, although that might protect them from encroaching into the utilities and things and buildings Page 4 of69 November 16,2017 and driveways and sidewalks. The bottom line is that the live oak is simply not an appropriate tree to be planted in a very small front yard or in close proximity to utilities and sidewalks and driveways and houses. The homeowners association has already had to spend a significant amount of money to repair sidewalks and driveways. They haven't had significant damage yet to the utilities, but trust me, that is coming. I know that from personal experience because I had a really big live oak tree in my small front yard. And after Irma, there's about a 1 5- to $ 1 6,000 repair bill to repair the electric and water lines that were torn up when the tree went down, not to mention the roof. So that's just a personal experience. MR. REISCHL: And, just forthe record, you don't live in Marbella? MR. MULHERE: I do no! no. I live in another community with a small yard. So the trees were planted within the rightof-way or adjacent to the CUE and only a few feet at most from the sidewalk, water and sewer lines. The plan - the landscape plan that was approved actually called for a separation of 1 2-and-a-half feet between the trees, yet many are much closer. The plan called for a significant -- let's see. The plan required that those trees be planted at least 7.5 feet from utilities, but they're actually planted within the utility easement. And as I mentioned already, the association actually went out on two different occasions and tested -- did some random digging to see if root barriers were installed and, yes, some root barriers were installed but most were not. In the sample, I think there was a couple planted, and if they did 15 or 16, the majority did not have root barriers. As I said, that may or may not be a good thing today based on what we found out from the storm, but the idea was to put root barriers in to prevent the intrusion into the utilities. So while the idea of a street tee program is laudable, these are the wrong fees and also the design simply does not allow for a very large canopy tree planted along the street when you have a utility easement and utilities planted also right along the street as well as sidewalks. Some communities have already put a stop to using live oaks in these smaller lots. I know the City of Fort Myers has done that. I want to just mention a couple of things. We had a neighborhood information meeting in Augus! and there was about 31 people in attendance. There were a lot of really good questions particularly related to is this going to cost me money as a homeowner. The answer is no. The association's paying for the removal. Some of the trees will likely be retained. There are some that are not problematic; they're not going to take those out. But obviously in the platted single-family areas and where they're close to the utility lines, it makes sense to remove them. There was a settlement, so there are funds in place from the developer to pay for this. The language that was finally agreed upon, working with Scott Stone particularly towards the end, is as follows. And I sent that to each ofyou so that you had the most recent version. What I want to point out is that there's some language in here that requires all single-family homes to meet the minimum planting requirements in the LDC. Most do; the vast majority do. There are a handful that may need another either palm tree or canopy tree planted somewhere either on the lot or in the rear of the lot. The association will then submit an insubstantial change to the approved landscape plan showing the removal and showing any lots that are required to have another tree to meet the minimum code requirements. I guess what I wanted to also mention is that this has nothing to do with the exterior perimeter buffer, which is really quite nice and will be retained 100 percent. This is all internal. So nobody driving by and nobody that doesn't Iive in Marbella Lakes is affected by this. There's also a requirement that Marbella HOA, at their expense, provide for those few that don't meet the code, the additional tree to meet the code. So the homeowner will not have any expense borne as a result of this removal. I really think it's pretty cut and dry. I'm happy to answer any questions. Jennifer's here to answer any questions. There are folks registered to speak or willing to speak, but I know you have a busy schedule, so I'm open to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Anybody have any questions or -- go ahead. Page 5 of69 November 16,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, thank you for sending me the redliner. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I noticed from it, though, that there was a typo in20 - 2.9K, the word should have been "lot," and instead it came out as o-o-t, oot. So you might want to make that -- unless this is propefty in Canada. MR. MULIIERE: I'm looking for that. It looks like it was conected in my version, but if it isn't I will correct it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mine doesn't say that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, maybe it happened duringthe redlining somehow. MR. MULHERE: That's possible. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. That's not in there; that's fine. Moving on, let's see. When you take trees out canopy trees, does that result in no increase of stormwater retention? What is the effect of the absence of large trees with root systems on stormwater? MR. MULI{ERE: I don't know that there's any effect. It has an effect on the use of water for irrigation. These trees, these oak trees, require a significant amount of -- I've heard 50 gallons a day per tree. But that's probably not every day. Maybe three days a week or something. But I'm not a landscape architect so I wouldn't qualifr myself as an expert. I don't know that there's any impact. There's a master stormwater plan that is required there, and these trees -- the county would not allow those trees to be planted as such that they would have a negative impact on the stormwater system, to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The original PUD was granted with the canopy trees in the - in the common area, if you will, or the HOA properfy, as a way of excusing the necessity of putting them in the small lots, which I understand completely. Now, with the removal ofthese trees and the replacement of only some but not all, I wonder what that does to the compromise that was reached back then. MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And along with that question, I'm just surmising that your settlement with GL did not involve enough cash to fully replace the trees, and so these are homeowner expense items; is that what the problem is? MR. MULI{ERE: No. There's two things: One, any tree that has to be replaced to meet the minimum code requirements. Like every other redevelopment, there are minimum requirements. And certainly they exceed the minimum requirements in common areas; they exceed the minimum requirements in their exterior buffers, but these trees that were planted, in some occasions they did go towards meeting those minimum requirements. There's very few; a handful of lots. Maybe l0 maximum. So but in those lots the HOA will pay to replace them but with a more appropriate tree. What the code allows you to do is replace a canopy tree with a grouping of three palms. Almost every lot has the three palms. There are just a handful where they don't have them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the minimums are going to be met. MR. MULI{ERE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then there was a NIM. Was there an electronic recording of it? MR. MULI{ERE: Yes, yes. We recorded it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That wasn't provided to us. MR. MULHERE: Well, we sent it to staff; I don't know. MR. REISCHL: Yeah. It's in City View. I didn't receive any requests for it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, we had this out at our last meeting, and I think Judy followed up to ask which Planning Commissioners wanted the electronic recording and I, for one, said I do, and I just would ask staffto be sure in the future -- it's less necessary in this kind of an unsubstantial thing. So I wouldn't change my vote, but in the future please be sure to forward those electronic wave files or MP4s, or whatever they are, on the thumb drive or otherwise so that I could listen to it. Okay? MR. REISCHL: Got it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the other point I wanted to make here, there's a lot of repetition in Page 6 of69 November 16,2017 the material that was sent to us. And, you know, when we get hundreds of pages, I expect that there is a reason why I'm getting all this material, and I need to read it and study it. I guess this is more directed to stafi but -- and I think our Chairman had made this point in the pas! and possibly other Planning Commissioners, that unnecessary repetition, first of all, puts the burden on us to figure out why we're reading this identical material again, and it also is a time waster. So, please, stafl when possible, eliminate the repetitive material. And that's all I have, thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HOMI.AK: Nobody. Fred, do you have another speaker that signed up? MR. REISCHL: We have a speaker. It says GL Homes. ['m not sure if there are other GL Homes projects here, or is this - COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, there are. MR. REISCHL: Chris Lecc4 are you on this or on another project? MR. LECCA: Another project. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay. MR. REISCHL: Another project. Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The staff report? MR. REISCHL: Just to keep it briet we agree with what the applicant has stated; that these are not necessary except for a few trees, and those trees will be replaced at the HOA's expense. The other trees are optional, so they could be replaced or they could be not replaced. And that's typical for most subdivisions, and we think it's not a -- it's not objectionable for this project to be the same. So we -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So in the end you'll work it out, and the Land Development Code will be followed. MR. REISCHL: It will follow the Land Development Code, and we have no objections to the change. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. One question for staff. In light of Hurricane lrma and all the damage that was done and all the fees, like along Livingston, that were just simply stood back up so they can fall again during the next storm, and in light ofthe fact that storms are getting more frequent and stronger, which is what I've read most everywhere, is anybody thinking of revisiting the entire landscape ordinance, root barriers, the type oftrees? Bob's right about live oaks getting massive, and people tend to plant them too close to everything because, at the start, we want everlthing to look very nice, and people forget that they grow, so... MR. REISCHL: Since Bob gave an example from his yard, I live in the Estates; my live oak trees definitely do not have root barriers and have plenty of room to spread out, and no damage to any of them. So it may be something to do with landscaping or small -- whether a root barrier itself orjust the confines of a small yard. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I live in - MR. REISCHL: We'll talk to Pam Lulich on this. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I live in a development; our oak trees did not fair well. MR. REISCHL: I understand. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No root barriers; oldertees. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mike? MR. BOSI: Chair. Mike Bosi, Zoning and Planning director. Yeah, that's been part of the discussion internally that, especially with our landscape folks, we need -- and it's not just recognized by the impacts of Irma. Prior to Irma there's been a lot of discussion as what is the appropriateness for our canopy tree - the evaluation of the list of fees that are acceptable. And I think we have to, with this more informed perspective, provide for a better understanding and analysis and allocation of what we believe are the appropriate mix of trees to be able to be utilized for landscape purposes PageT of69 November 16,2017 and individual neighborhoods because ofthe impacts that it can create. And, you're right, the frequencies and the intensities of these storms are only anticipated to increase. So with that recognition, I think that the placement location, and type of trees are all something that we need scrutinized, and obviously that scrutiny will be brought back to the Planning Commission for your recommendations and evaluations, then the Board of County Commissioners for theirs as well. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. Any other questions or -- does anybody wish to speak, or are you all set? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think we're set. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Can I make a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make amotion to approve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All those in favor, signi$, by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Opposed like sigl. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion carries. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Have a good day. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, Karen. +*+The next item up is 98. It's PL20160002360. It's the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill District. It's at the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Disclosures; we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None other than those in the public record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich, and I think that's it. CE{IRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have also spoken with Mr. Yovanovich, and I've gotten emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I have talked to Mr. Yovanovich. Ive talked to staff. I've had this case come up in presentations I make in different parts of the county where citizens have expressed concem over what was actually going in there. I don't -- that was before all the facts were known, but that's the only part of that disclosure from the public that I can add. Diane -- or, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. With that, Wayne, do you want to start us out? MR. ARNOLD: Good moming. Forthe record, I'm Wayre Amold with Grady Minor & Associates and representing the applicant today. Ourteam consists of Rich Yovanovich, the land-use attomey;Johnny English and Bruce Layman are both here from Barron Collier Companies/Peninsula Engineering representing the project owner; and then Norm Trebilcock prepared our traffic analysis and is here if you have any questions related to traffic. Page 8 of69 November 16,2011 The subject today is to amend an existing commercial subdistrict in the Comprehensive Plan. The property's located at the corner -- noftheast corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. It's paltially developed with the former Sweetbay anchor grocery store and retail center. There's a three-story office building at the corner of the intersection, and then there's some other retail and office that's been constructed within the project. The project is separated into kind of a north and south portion. North of Panther Lane is also part of the subdistrict and the existing PUD. It's been developed entirely with office uses. And Panther Lane, incidentally, runs into the back of Pine Ridge Middle School, and it's a sigralized intersection. So, in essence, what we're attempting to do is to amend the subdistrict to make it a mixed-use district in order to add up to 375 multifamily rental units on the parcel. And so we have added language that's in your backup material that's underlined, and we've also added a reference to the preserve, because as we go to a mixed-use, the preserve requirements acfually slightly increase. But the preserves we have on site are already incumbered in conservation easements, and there's really not an opportunity to meaningfully recreate some small additional preserve. So we've added the reference to the existing preserve number in our subdistrict; that's why you find that there. The rental community, we believe, is not only a compatible land use; we think it's well located to serve the community. It's an infill project. It has good access to other facilities. There's existing shopping not only within the center but nearby. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not picking up as clear. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Sorry about that. I'll stand closer. So we believe it represents a really good location. Mike Timmerrnan created a market analysis and analyzed the effect of having 375 more rental units in this location in North Naples, so he looked at several other communities. His conclusions were that there was an adequate demand for more units in the marketplace. We believe that the request also responds well to the direction that the County Commission has been hearing liom its housing folks that we need to have a more diverse group of housing choices in the community, and we believe that this option to add residential in this location would do that. Staffs analysis recommended that you transmit this to the state, and we hope you concur with that. I would say that we have a concurrent PUD amendment flrat's in and processing, and it's coming to you -- I'm not sure we have a specific date, but it's soon. There were some minor comments that were resubmitted to the county recently. But I can show you what that looks like. ln terms of the master plan, we're making provisions for that. It disappeared from my screen, but I can see it there. So that's oriented - north is to your left and that represents the existing master plan for the project. What we've done is made provisions for the residential to be located in two portion of that project. Here and here (indicating). So those two tracts have a note that were added to the master plan that would say those two could have residential only, and that's largely because that's the only two vacant. One would be a reclamation of the existing or portion of the existing retail center, and then there's a vacant out block that's on Goodlette Road, but those represent the only two areas where residential development would occur. The site has existing infrastructure in place. As you're aware, there's no capacity issues with regard to any of the level-of-service analysis that was prepared as part of the plan amendment. We think it's a good use as an option for this property and hope you can support it. I can answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And before we get into questions, there was one disclosure I forgot, so I want to make it before we go too far. I talked to two residents of I think it's called Northgate to the south side of Pine Ridge Road. MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were concerned about your height issues, traffic, and I can't remember what else right now offhand. But most of the issues they were talking about were PUD related. So anyway, I just wanted to disclose that. Page 9 of69 November 16,201'7 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I would note for the record, too, that there is a height limitation of four stories over the parking that's parl of the plan amendment language. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Which is a change from the current plan. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I'll turn to the Planning Commission. Are there any questions on the PUDA amendment? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have some, and you may ask me to defer to the PUD side of this at a later time, but I think better to raise them now than later because I think that they are fairly substantive. The two issues that I came away with concerns, that is to say, were the height issue and the traffic issue. And I see a reference to four stories over parking. Could you tell me what the maximum building height sought to be permitted is from the very tippy top, including the aboveground parking. How high will those buildings be above ground level? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that offthe top of my head. But give us a few minutes, and I'll try to get you that number. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If you want to know, I can tell you. Is that okay, Wayne, or do you want to -- I mean, I have your PUD submittal right in front of me. MR. ARNOLD: I was going to say, I was just going to pull up the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There was a reference to 50 feet but I couldn't tell if that - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, the maximum height requested for retail buildings in the new PUD is the same as the old, 40 feet, and the asking for office and financial institution is the same as the old, three stories not to exceed 50 feet but then they have a table. They're looking for architectural features at 60 fee! and their actual maximum building height in the table for the residential, zoned 55 and actual 60. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does that include above-ground parking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the actual at 60 would have to, yes, unless Wayne's telling me he's got some other thing he's thinking. MR. ARNOLD: No. I put the table from the proposed PUD on the visualizer, and Mark is correct, the multifamily is at 55 zoned height; actual height would be 60. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. The NIM survey -- summary, rather, I found to be wanting when I compared it to the transcript that had been furnished, and thank you for fumishing a transcript. It's very helpful. In addition to the traffic and the height there were other points that were raised by the residents that were not brought forth in the summary, but I don't think it's of any consequence since we had a transcript, so I won't belabor that point. Now, yesterday the County Commission approved the 2017 AU& and I'm not suggesting that you need to be in compliance with that today, but I am suggesting that the contents of the AUIR with respect to traffic on Pine Ridge is informative and certainly raises concerns in some cases in the next six years and in one case immediately as being -- that certain segments of Pine fudge will be deficient, either are deficient today or will be deficient in six years, and that's over toward Livingston. And, you know, I don't know that the law prohibits us from considering that. I'd be interested to hear. Mr. Yovanovich tells me that I'm not supposed to consider that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just for the record, Rich Yovanovich. When the PIID comes forward, the TIS associated with the PIID does reference the2077 AUIR. So you will have that at the PUD level to analyze, and so you'll have all that information. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. But for the purposes of now, we can consider --Irealize this is transmittal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: - but these are substantive issues that I think everybody concerned should - I would like them to have my concerns expressed now rather than later. MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mr. Trebilcock will be prepared to answer questions you have on that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And so I worry about the Goodlette intersection which has - in six years ifs going to be deficien! and Livingston, which I know is farther away, is already deficient. And, you know, this is something that we can almost sort of take judicial notiie of. We all have Page 10 of69 November 16,2017 practical experience, real-life experience with Pine Ridge, and it's a mess. And it may not have been a mess in1999, and it may not have been a mess in 2015, although it was getting messy, bu! you know, when I look at this project, I like the idea of mixed-use but Im very, very concerned about what is going to happen on Pine Ridge. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a certified planner and professional engineer, and my firm prepared the Traffic lmpact Statement for the project. So I'm kind of maybe covering a couple of your questions here. The section that you're talking about in terms of the deficient section of Pine Ridge Road would be to the east, like you said, Livingston Road. And really up to that point, our impact to the level of services is below the thresholds to really look to analyze that portion of the link, because we have a small impact, and that's really what we look at. It's kind ofthe significance test is what we look at. So our volumes really diminish sigrrificantly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do understand that, and I accept that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I also think you need to acknowledge that Pine Ridge is Exit 107 offof I-75, and you're going to have people who are trying to get to 4l who are going to have to pass through Livingston as well as down the line where the traffic is undoubtedly going to be greater when the time comes. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think that's a factor that can be simply igrored. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. Okay. And also, the intersection, too, that is something that we do look at in more detail in the - when you do the -- say, the site development or platting stage. Staffwill have us analyze that intersection for any capacity issues as such as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that's good, that's a good thing, but I think we all analyze it when we drive along it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And it sort of speaks loudly for itself, I would say. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd likejustto clarif something. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're in here today to ask for a GMP agreement to increase the density that could be provided in that location from 245 residential to 37 5. I think that opens the door for us to certainly be able to question -- I don't care if it's five years or I 0 years down the road, the ability for Pine fudge Road to handle that over all. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you may want to defer to the PUD, but we're not necessarily bound by that. I can assure you when Ned gets done, I have a lengthy discussion on transportation that I'll have as well, and I intend for all that stuffto be carefully considered, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank yoq Mr. Chairman. Also, my next point has to do with the Arthrex development. Could you tell us a little bit about that and your analysis of how that might or might not impact the Goodlette traffic at Pine Ridge. MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as down in the southern portion? Well, what the county does do, they will, what they call, bank trips, and so they'll look at trips of future developments that are coming in, and then the growth rates we use to account for future projects as they're developing along the line. So those are taken into account from that standpoint. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- Mr. Fryer, are you referring to the proposed new hotel -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or are you talking about the existing PUD or both? Im just -- I wasn't sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not familiar in detail with what Arthrex is planning. But the Page 11 of69 November 16,2017 Arthrex situation was mentioned in the NIM, and so I'm asking about whatever is going on or in the works up there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. All right. Because Norm, coincidentally, did that analysis as well, and he did an analysis of the apartment -- I'm sorry -- the office building, and the most current PUD amendment is to add a hotel to the list of uses on the west side of the road, and that hotel will be to service people that are already coming to visit Arthrex for training, for all different types of things. So I think that Norm will be able to testify, but that probably will actually be a reduction because these people will now be staying on the campus and not having to travel to the campus on the road system. But I'll let Norm -- because we just had a NIM on that one the other day. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So just in follow-up to that the proposed hotel addition there for Arthrex actually will be trip neutral, because we're going to reduce an accompanying amount of office square footage there at Arthrex. So it will be trip neutral. And it's actually conservative, because we don't use quite to the degree the internal capture that we realistically see. We just use the standard ones that the county accepts there, so we're good there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see. I'm going to clear my traffic questions, and then I'm going to double back, and I have a question for Wayne. The comparison which is drawn in the materials is to what could have happened had the property been fully built out and the allowances for traffic had that happened but, of course, that didn't happen. The commercial penetration at that area seems to have peaked or maxed, and perhaps that's why we're being asked to allow for residential. So I would be very interested to know what the actual p.m. peak and 24-hotx two-way traffrc current numbers are. Because I'm not saying that they're the only thing that should be considered, but I think it's worth knowing what those numbers are. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: By current numbers, are you asking for the numbers that this proposal is supported by or the numbers that were provided in the TIS in 1999 that the rest of you did not get? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Really neither one, Mr. Chairman. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm trying to get a clarification. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The 2015 was then, and then 1999 was way before then. I'm talking about today, now, has there been a study to determine what we all know, I think we all know, that Pine Ridge is heavily trafficked? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. What we did - part of the traffic study we did and that we're resubmitting with the update to the 2017 AUIR for the PUDA includes what would be the existing threshold of development on the property today versus what is being proposed. So we do have that number, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you have it. I'd like it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. It's in the study. It's -- the p.m. peak hourtwo-way volume is 529 trips is what we had in the study that was -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: P.m. peak is 529? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct in the current study that you have. And the proposed net buildout is 698 trips. So it's 169 is the additional trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I missed that. MR. TREBILCOCK: No problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. Oh, there were a number of - these are for Mr. Amold, I think. In the transcript of the NIM which, again, was very helpful, there were some statements made, and I just would like to ask for followup on those beginning at Line 9 on Page 44 of the materials we have electronically - I hope that corresponds to the paper -- Wayne, you said, I hear -- trust me -- I'll tell you right now, I'm hearing every one of you, and I'll take your concerns back, and we'll talk about them, and we'll see how we can address most, if not all, of these concerns. And so my question is if you wouldn't mind Page 12 of 69 November 16,2017 summarizing what if anl,thing, you've been able to do. MR. ARNOLD: Well, one of the things we did is reduced our request from 400 units to 375 units. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Any other? MR. ARNOLD: Not specifically that I can think of. I mean, we have a PUD that we've added - that's a little farther along, so there have been adjustments to address staffcomments, but with regard to the traffic comments, et cetera, I think, you know, Norm can certainly get into some of those things, but there were operational questions about turning movements and things onto Goodlette-Frank Road that came up in the meeting, and I know that Norm has had further discussion with staffand has looked at those issues as well. We don't believe those are issues of concern for the project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then an unknown speaker, who appeared to be a small business owner probably renting commercial space, said he just spent almost $200,000 on his buildout, and he said, what happens to me when you tear down my building? And you said, we would make ceftain provisions either to relocate you or -- and I'm paraphrasing, otherwise, to make you whole, is what you said to him. And I was wondering if you could add any more meat on those bones what specifically you might do to provide support to people who have invested in the buildouts. MR. ARNOLD: The person that responded to that comment was David Gensen with Barron Collier Companies. There was a tenant who had built out their unit. And I don't know -- every tenant has a lease, and I don't know the terms of each of those leases, but there are provisions for exiting your lease early or, if the project owner terminates the lease in advance, there are notices given, and there may be furancial provisions in those as well. I'm not familiar with ttre details of the lease. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. The transcript ascribed those comments to you, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: I think that was incorrect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. So do you or Mr. Yovanovich have anything in addition that you could say to give some more comfoft to businesspeople who have invested considerably in their buildout, how they'd be protected? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. All I know is the same situation would occur in almost any strip center that you have in Collier County, that the owner certainly can exercise their rights to utilize their property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, this is a very early stage, and so I think it's a good thing that we get these things out -- MR. ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- because you're going to be coming back to us one or two times, and I will be asking these same questions. So it's really not necessary that you have exact solutions now, but I expect -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it's an unknown speaker, I'm not even sure which space it is. So let me get with Mr. Gensen, figure out where that is, if that tenant is still there. I don't know. We'll figure it all out, and I'll make sure I can report back to the Planning Commission that issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Wayne, one more thing. You said, well, the altemative is that he, the owner, continues to build out all of the commercial development that's currently unbuilt, which has an additional traffrc impac! but you get no say in iq sorry. That w:rs your response to -- MR. ARNOLD: I think tha! too, might have been attributed to someone other than me. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You didn't say that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so, but I recall hearing that. But I think that goes back to the issue, we have an existing PUD, when we have an existing comprehensive plan that allows this to be developed at 100 percent retail and offrce. It hasn't been 100 percent built out, but the owner could continue and may continue to go ahead and build additional retail and office. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One would suspect it a financial loss, though, under current conditions, wouldn't you think? I mean, why else would we be here? MR. ARNOLD: Well, i don't know, other than I know that there has been interest by multifamily developers, but there's also been interest by other large format retailers for taking over the Sweetbay space' Page 13 of69 November 16,2017 So I think this is truly an option of development that makes sense. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, forgive me for associating that comment with you, but the transcript did. I'm glad to hear you didn't say it because, frankly, I don't think it's true. I think the homeowners have plenty to say about this, particularly when it comes before the county commissioners. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- and the context of that comment would be that if nothing changed by adding the residential, there could still be more retail and office built, which contributes to the background traffic. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else from the Planning Commission at this time? (No response.) MR. ARNOLD: You want Mr. Trebilcock? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I want to go through in order, and I have, I don't know, about half a dozen different documents to talk about. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But let's f,rst start with the justification for the proposed amendment and that starts on Page 7 of 1 I for the -- one of the -- the first few documents in the book. And you have a sentence in there that says, the proposed residential component of this subdistrict is anticipated to follow the success of Orchid Run. Then the second paragraph goes on and talks abou! you're in a high employment center, such as Naples Community Hospital to the north, Naples Community Hospital downtown, multiple shopping areas, Naples High School, Pine Ridge Middle School, and many other employment locations. It seems the insinuation by referencing those are the service workers, teachers, and other people that may live in facilities with that kind of employment, yet I was talking to Sue Filson - Falkner -- Sue Filson's another Sue in the county -- Sue Falkner yesterday in a staffmeeting, and she indicated - and I didn't say anything to her about it at the time, but I thought I'd double-check today - that she had -- I thought she had said that the price points were going to be 2,500 a month for those apartments. And if you tell me that's not true, I'll ask her to clari! then. But is that something that you can veriff? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure which document you're looking at, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm looking at the Page 9 electronic -- we have 328 pages in just this submittal, not the other documents. Page 9. And I can't tell you necessarily who put it there. Let me see. I think it's the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Staffrepor! yeah. It would be Page 7 of the staffreport, Page 9 of the electronic data. But I think the question's simpler than that, Wayne. What's the price points for the rentals? MR. ARNOLD: I'll have to look at the market analysis. I don't know that number offthe top of my head, Mr. Strain. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if you're trying to get into a price point that Sue had indicated she had possibly heard, 140 percent of median income is -- and it would put them at ayea*y household income around $90,000. That would justif a $2,000-a-month rent. So if you're at2,500,you're even above 140 AMI, which is a pretty high standard. I'm not saying it's bad or good. I'm just suggesting that it may not be that employment market that you referenced in the paragraph I pointed out to you. On that same page, the 37 5 multifamily dwelling units correspond to an estimated population of 900 full+ime residents. That's going to be part of the discussion that I'll have with Norm, I guess, iince he's representing you for transportation. I need to know how many of those people are going to actually be traveling east of Livingston Road. And the reason that's important is, if youlve got DOO people whose only access or primary access to l-75, which is a link that a lot of people use and it's iommonly used, is going io be going east of Livingston to get to it on Pine Ridge. That's the failed section of Pine Ridge Road, andhat's the piece that I'll need some clarification on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I? This is one of the rare times where I get to actually be a fact witness. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That means you can be cross-examined then. MR. YOVANOVICH: please come at it. Page 14 of69 November 16,2017 I live in the Pine Ridge community, and I could tell you, when I want to go to I-75, I do not go on Pine Ridge Road. I go up to - I usually -- here is my route. I cut across Vanderbilt Road, and I go that way to get to I-75 up on [mmokalee Road, and I think that most of us who live in that area know the path of least resistance is to not take Pine Ridge Road to go to I-75. And in those rare instances, once every 10 years or so that I acfually decide to go over to Miami, I get on I-75 at either Golden Gate Parkway or others. We -- those of us who are in that area know that the best access to I-75 is not Pine fudge Road. So I don't think we'll -- I think people will recognize we will not be adding a lot of traffic going on that section of Pine Ridge Road or using Pine Ridge Road to go east to get to I-75. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you're going to put a restriction in all your rental agreements that says you cannot use Pine Ridge Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. But I'm telling you, Mr. Strain, we all are creatures of understanding what the roadway system is, and we all figure out - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are those creatures on that road every night blocking us up for multiple passes trying to get through the light systems in trying to get to I-75? What are those creatures -- is it that memory doesn't sink in? They can't leam that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just telling you where the residential people are and how we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm telling you I don't think your -- I understand what you said you, but I don't think it carries much weight. But I appreciate your comments. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I'm going to bite my tongue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So he's blocking up Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The GMPA seems to be written in a manner contrary to what was told to the public at the NIM and what I had heard this project to be. Basically, you were going to remain with the square footage that was built to date as a usable square footage and that the remaining -- I think it - you claim it's been 70,000 -- was not going to be built. In return you were going to build your residential. And I noticed the header on the GMPA advertisement doesn't reflect that, neither does the language in the GMP, and neither does the PLID that you guys are processing. So can you explain that? Because in the NIM you told -- Mr. Amold -- well, Norm Trebilcock prepared the analysis and, as I indicated, part of the square footage of commercial will go away to accommodate the new residential. So there's a tradeoffhere. So now - but the GMPA says you want the existing commercial and office plus an additional density for residential. How does that work? MR. ARNOLD: Well, the PUD does have a conversion factor in it, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a different animal, and that's a whole 'nother mess we're going to get into because, basically, what you're sying is, by that you're not dropping 70,000 square feet of commercial that was the original - what I think was -- everybody thought was the original intent or a lot of people may have, but you're going to keep as much of it as you don't build out in residential to some mysterious traffic figure that converts it. MR. ARNOLD: The comment that was made at the neighborhood information meeting was made in the context of we really can't just put 375 more units and all of the commercial on the same site. We will have to displace some of the existing retaiVcommercial in order to build this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know -- when I met with you-all yesterday and I suggested that the intent of the GMPA seemed different than what I'd previously heard was going to happen with this property, you-all didn't object to my comment on that, so I didn't prepare today to argue that point. I was just assuming you'd have corrected the GMPA to say whatever the current existing commercial on the ground is is what you intend to keep the square footage, and you're asking to replace the additional commercial square footage with X number of units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we do it this way, because that's not the intent. The intent was to remain traffrc neutral. And why don't we just put the PUD conversion formula into the GMPA so that we can ensure neutrality and not have to lock in our only option as commercial. I mean, the desire is you have a Page 15 of69 November 16,2017 different option of uses in the property and remain traffic neutral. So if we decide to do 100 units instead of 375 units, there would be less of a reduction in the commercial uses that are allowed on the property. That's the context as I read it in the minutes, because I wasn't there. But that's always been the context. And we have no objection to adding, if you want to, a conversion formula into the GMP amendment so that we can assure the transportation neutrality we've always been saying we're willing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And I -- because this is the GMPA and I happen to have access to the PUD and was able to see some of these other issues you've got in there. I don't know if staffis readily prepared to certifu or guarantee to us that the conversion ratio you've come up with is adequate, and that's the question I'm going to have of transportation, both yours and ours, if Mike or Trinity or somebody's here from our department. They're both here. Good. Yeah, that's a whole 'nother discussion I wasn't prepared for today because I didn't really expect the pushback because you didn't give me any yesterday. I figured if you had an objection to that, you'd tell me, and I'd be able to find the research. You could have yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe I didn't understand the total context. I thought your question was in the context of are we remaining traffic neutral, and I don't think we ever said that we're absolutely guaranteeing we're getting rid of commercial and going the apartment route. We had said we wanted to add apartments as an option ifthat becomes the better option for this center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't use the words "transportation neutral." I can assure you that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the way I understood it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, that's the way you might have understood iq but that's not what I was asking. And I thought when your client indicated - I thought your client indicated an agreement that was a discrepancy, but he didn't vocalizethat; I just saw his head move up and down, so... We'll still get into that before the day's over, so... My next point that I wanted to ask Wa1,ne and maybe - I brought this up to you yesterday. And if Norm wants to answer this particular one question before I get into transporlation, in the NIM, unknown speaker says, and in addition to tha! there's two churches, and they had to have police to let people get in and out of the those two churches every single Sunday mornmg. You're talking about putting 400 apartments in. Who is going to direct the traffic to get these people in and out of the complex? One unknown speaker said God, and then Mr. Trebilcock, who I think was the substitute for God, said, well, that -- again, that's an important thing that we can address specifically bu! you know -- yes, Ray, back in the corner. And I think he was probably talking to the gentleman I spoke to yesterday from the North Brook Apartments. Ray - I forgot his last name. But anyway, what did you mean by that? What are you going to do to satisfl, that concern to the extent you intended it to those folks at that NIM? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Yes, I probably never said so much in two dashes, I guess, when I look at the transcript back, and -- CI{AIRMAN STRAN: And how'd you know to look at the transcript? MR. TREBILCOCK: What's that? CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: How'd you know to look at the transcript to answer your question? MR. TREBILCOCK: Ijust got a copy of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I had met yesterday, and I asked them to make sure -- and I meet with the applicant on one -- there's one goal, and that's to find out -- let them know what I'm going to be looking for today so you-all can come prepared to answer the questions as best as possible. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which works both ways. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I expected some of the pushback on this GMPA language. That would have gone further yesterday in my questioning. But go ahead. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. And, by the way, I'm -- I also live in the area there, and I live in the Page 16 of69 November 16,2017 Autumn Woods community, which is just to the north, and Im a member of the North Naples United Methodist Church as well -- so I'm familiar with the area -- which is the church just to the north. So the intention of answering the question is really related to these are operational issues typically, but I can get more in-depth on that -- is currently the church, which is a good quarter -- nearly a quarter mile to the north of us, when the church uses the sheriffs deputies to help on Sunday, it's for a very finite period of time for folks to be able to come in and out of the church itself. And so there's -- that's off-peak periods, and our development, though, to the south we do have a signal there right at Panther Lane. So there's really no interference. They've got a good quarter mile away. So if cars queue up for coming in and out of the church off of Goodlette-Frank Road, there's no impact to ourselves. So there's really not a big negative interface, but that's typically the type of operational questions that we'll address with staffwhen we get into doing the Site Development PIan part of ig and that was really the intent. And I think it was discussed prior in the meeting as well, that kind of thing, so that's what -- that continuance there. And, you know, maybe I was drowned out by the laughter from the prior speaker about you know, the God comment as well, you know, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - but, Norm, it says, well, that -- again, that's an important thing that we can address specifically. So in this in-depth review that you're currently going through for the PUD, how did you address that issue? Or did you? What did you consider addressing the issue? Because I can't tell by what you said here. Are you going to have people standing there every day and patrol the place? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir. Again, I think this is an - unfortunately, not complete of what the answer was there. And, again, this is a type of thing that we do. It is an important issue, and it's something that does get addressed as part ofthe site development portion of it. I certainly can address it now, too, in any response for the PUD amendment. And, again, they really are separate. They're separate areas, so there's really no interference, so there is not a significant problem. Again, from my own personal experience, I don't see that as an issue at all and then from my professional as well. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you're not doing anything above the minimum standards required for your SDP submittal? MR. TREBILCOCK: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ln order to respond to that speaker -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, no, we would in the SDP, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you're going to respond to that speaker by meeting the conditions for transportation subject to the SDP minimum standards? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct because we don't see there's an operational problem with it. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you didn't say that to the gentleman. You just simply said - you insinuated you're going to do more than above, but it doesn't look like you're going to. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. But I believe -- my recollection would be is -- I think it was a bit drowned out in that thing, but you know, again, I don't see an issue with that as - operationally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you get a copy of the 1999 TIS that I sent to Mr. Yovanovich at his request yesterday so that you, in a little bit, when I get done with some of the other stufi I'd like to ask you questions. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, yes. I have that as a reference, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. It wasn't in our packet, and I had to ask Sue to find it for me and provide it to me, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Soon I'll have some issues on that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: The heighg Wayne, you're asking -- it used to be three-story buildings, and when we turned to the old P[ID, you're actually keeping, I believe, the same actual height. You just increased Page 17 of 69 November 16,2017 the zoned height from 5 feet. Is that a fair assumption? MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fair. I need to look at the document myself to make sure that your statement's accurate, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the other question is, I mentioned to you yesterday concems from some of the neighborhoods to the south about your four-story over parking height and suggested that you look to put a line on the master plan as a line -- a point for the residential, because this will be a residential issue where this would start as far as potentially being that new four-story over parking. Did you guys, like, take a look atthat? I know it's a PUD issue. I'm just asking for clarification now so when the PIID comes in we don't have to fight about it. MR. ARNOLD: I wasn't present at your meeting, Mr. Strain, but I think Mr. Yovanovich - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, he wasn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know Wayne and I look a lot alike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He looks like David Gensen. What are you talking about? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. You need to shave. The answer to your question -- and I think the aerial that we had up -- it may not be more detailed enough. The building -- there's a bank, I think, it's Valley National Bank, that's right on Pine Ridge Road. So that building is, as well as the Starbucks building, is staying, and so is the office building that fronts Pine Ridge Road. So we could put a line on the master plan when we come back at the PUD to show that basically it would start at the very southern end of the liner (sic) building. That would be the closest it would get to where you would have the potential four stories over parking. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Or the southern line of the building you showed me on your master -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- I mean site plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But I would suggest when we do the PIID, let's get that locked in before -- so that will at the point help - MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. That's not a problem. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the process and understand it better. We don't have to research it. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can either do that or we also talked about a minimum distance from, I think - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Pine Ridge Road. MR. YOVANOVICH: - Pine Ridge Road. So we can go one orthe otherway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. The market study. This is an interesting one. Is there -- do you have your marketing study people here? Is Craig MR. ARNOLD: Unfortunately, Mike Timmernan was not able to be here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're going to have fun then. Do you know why on Page -- well, it's Page 139 of the electronic version, but it's Page 39 of his market study, last paragraph. Now, I don't know how much Mike knows about Milano Lakes. It's the affordable housing rental complex that David Tones is doing that. I think, Wayne, you may have been involved in over off Lords Way. MR. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It's behind the Assembly of God Church Ministries. He referenced that as being in - that they're actually going to come online with296 units. Now, that's offof Collier Boulevard over by the Swamp Buggy grounds. How does that -- why would he -- why is that as a reference? I thought that was odd to pick something miles and miles out in the other side of I-75 in the urban fringe. MR. ARNOLD: I believe the context of that -- and I've had the conversation with Mr. Timmerman -- that was to show the lease-up rates. It wasn't necessarily that they're fighting for the same rental tenant but to show how fast these are leasing up in the community, the new apartment complexes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How fast what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're leasing up. But you've picked an affordable housing project to Page 18 of69 November 16,2017 show how competes to an extremely high-end project and I'm just wondering -- that seemed kind of odd to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's not an affordable housing project, that part - CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, it's got affordable rentals in it. I doubt if it's going to get to $2,500 a month. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't say that, but what I'm saying is it was also focused on essential service personnel, which is the teachers and othen that we were talking about. So it's - and there's plenty of market-rate units within that project too. I think what Mike was trying to do was to show you that we've looked at everything that's been approved recently, and there's still market demand even though we just - that one was approved, the Vincentian PUD was also approved, and -- that's not coming out of the ground ye! but there are other projects that are coming out of the ground like Addison Place. There's been projects approved recently, and they're still more demand that needs to be met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you want to continue answering for Mr. Timmerman, that's great. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 174 electronically but Page74 of the PDF and Page 36 of the market study - I have to give you so many numbers because we all are running offdifferent versions here. You have a chart on the top, and the chart on the top has Letters A through M for columns and then years alongside it. And it says annual demand for market-rate units. And in 2017,the annual demand is 10,493. What does that represent? Demand for just that year? Because that's - I think that demand is two pages beyond that where it says cumulative demand. ln the year 2017 it looks like its annual need is 753, and cumulatively up to that point it's 1,893, and then he has the approved units, and he uses Milano to offset that by 296, and he has another, apparently, affordable housing -- or not affordable, but apparently a rental unit of 300 to offset it for 2018. Can you explain, first, what the first table means as far as the 2017 total demand is? Does that mean all of the rental units on the market at that time? And then he's sying, as each year progresses, two pages below that, on 20 - we need so many more units per year, and 5 I 0 in 2015, 630 in 2016, 7 15 -- 53 n 2017? Do you know, Wayne? I mean, your market guy's not here. This is a big piece of this GMPA. You're asking for density in excess what should be in that location, and I'm just trying to understaad the justification for it. MR. ARNOLD: Well, in reading what Mr. Timmerman set out as his criteri4 that column, which is H, it says annual demand, it says, the estimate of total market rate rental households based on the household income range, and it's calculated by multiplying Column F by Column G. So I think it's a factor based on income. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the income range he used to generate that is percent of income between 30K and 99-. What does that mean; do you know? MR. ARNOLD: I think that's based on percent of households that have an income range between 30,000 and $99,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did he say that the total rental households available in2017 are2l,4l5, or does he say that's the need, and ofthe need 49 percent ofthose are between that range and therefore, since you're in, supposedly, that range in 2017,we need 10,493 in that range? MR. ARNOLD: No. As he defines ig that column represents, Mr. Strain -- it says, the percentage of households that have income between 30,000 and 99,000. I don't think it's meant to be a demand number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the product that you're producing at whatever rental rate you're asking for, what does he think the demand for that product is, and how is it needed on a yearly basis, and what is the total on the market to date? Why don't we just ask that as a global, and then we can stop trying to analyze tables without him here. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think if you go to Page 38 of his analysis, there's atable. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Up on top. That's the one I referred to, yes. MR. ARNOLD: Right. And it talks about the net demand for units by year. Page 19 of69 November 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so 2017 , we need 753 units; is that what you're agreeing to? MR. ARNOLD: I think thafs what he determined to be the annual need for units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: An additional, right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And somehow the current supply seems to be more than the annual need, and then it says -- and he subtracts from the cumulative demand the approved units to end up with a net demand of 1597 . So is the I 597 needed on top of a current supply column that appears to be greater than the need already? MR. ARNOLD: I'll have to take a look at this and try to give you an answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. But I don't know that I can respond to you instantaneously on that comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because there's another piece that I've got to bring up to you. The county has done a GSI analysis on all the rental units in Collier County, and this just came out. It's an ll l0lll7 , so it's just recent. There's a total of l1 ,7 46 rental apartments in Collier County based on that analysis. Also, there are nine projects already in process or some of them permitted and being built. Lely being one; Milano Lakes being another; the Isles of Collier's coming in for 304 units; we've got a project -- I've got a whole series of them. I think one you worked on, Briarwood, or Bob Mulhere did that one. You have a total of 2,912 units in process right now, and I don't see how that's reflected, because he only has a table that shows there are two: New Hope Ministries and First Assembly Ministries Educational Rehab. I'm just trying to understand where all these other -- on the bottom of that page where all those units are and how he accounted for them in his analysis as shown in that. There needs to be a need above what's already - what you could have asked for on that properly, which is 245 units. You're asking for 375. So I think you need to justifl, that additional need. And I haven't seen that in this market study, or at least you're not able to answer it, and I understand that. I thought Mr. Timmerman would be here today, and he's not. So I'm not sure how to resolve that issue, but at least you understand my concem for now. MR. ARNOLD: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And now we get to talk about traffic. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe Mr. Trebilcock should - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm glad he's here. I don't know if you'd want this as well. Now, Norm, I'm going to kind of tell you where I'm coming from first so you understand. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a little more serious because of the circumstances than other traffic issues we may have just not paid as much attention to. We have two road systems going east and west in Collier County that we rely on right now. We have others that are being created. One being Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. But our east road corridors, Immokalee and Pine Ridge, are becoming critical to drive on. Now, I know what your numbers say. Oh, they're fine, and they're not going to - they're okay and all this. And I know - I hear this constantly, well, you know, if you've got to wait for three light changes, that's not a big deal. You know, if you had to do that for one light, I'd say yes, but not every light all the way along down the road. And I had to drive these roads a lot. I drove them every day. And some I had to drive specifically in the middle of the day, and I found the conditions just as bad. And I know that your profession has brought stuff to us constantly saying we're going to do less impacts than we could do, and that's why this is good. But it's kind of like climate change; it keeps saying, well, we're not going to cause any problems with the climate to a factor we could have, so we're doing better. But before we know it, it's irreversible, and we seem to be at that position on Pine Ridge and Immokalee Road. I'm real concemed about that. And I'm going to be asking questions to try to understand how you are generating a reduction in traffrc by adding 900 people to your project, and part ofthe conclusion or concem I have is the original TIS that - you did get a copy ofthaq did I hear you say earlier? Page 20 of 69 November 16,2017 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And tried to match that up to yours, and I couldn't. And that's an interesting situation, because I'm going to need you to do that for me. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that's where we can start. If you can -- I'm going to find my version of it somewhere in this mess, and - there it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, do you need this? Can I look at it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can have ig as far as I'm concerned. I gave that one to Sue. It's up to Sue, if she wants to release it. I'll send her another one. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'll give itback. Ijustwanttoread it. MS. FALKNER: It's okay, Rich. You can have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, why don't we go to your tables on Page 98 of my document,Page 17 of yours. Well, actually, it's Page 198 of my document. I know Ned's probably fiercely trying to find it. The pages as I read them are for your benefit, because I know you're trying to do it electronically. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ln the executive summary forthe 1999 TIS, the project is expected to add 7,114 trips to the road system, 812 of which will occur at p.m. peak hour. I couldn't find those numbers in your comparisons of the approved PUD versus the new PUD that you're proposing. Can you tell me where they are or how they fit in? MR. TREBILCOCK: You won't f,rnd those. It's not the same. They're two different documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, yours and this one, I understand that. But you had referred to the proposed -- I mean, to the approved PUD. Did you not use the numbers from this TIS to do that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Not the trip numbers, no, because what happens is we're required to use the most recent ITE trip generation data, and that was based on what's called the sixth edition, and we are at the ninth edition when we did this traffic study and, actually, we have the lOth edition knocking on our door right now. So we used the ninth edition. So there's three editions we've moved forward with. And so what happens is the Institute of Transportation Engineers, they'll adopt newer editions, and they'll look at - they'll get a larger dataset of traffic, and so the trip generations can be different. And that's - specifically. Because I did take a look at, like, the shopping center and, specifically, the shopping center is different. You use -- the same 100,000 square feet back then is a different trip generation today using the ITE numbers. And so we're required to use the most current editions of ITE that the county's adopted, and we're currently at the ninth edition. So those are the numbers we use. What we used in terms of that old TIS, then, would be the square footages and distribution numbers, things like that. But in terms -- for the trip generation, we would not. Also, even pass-by factors, they used a higher pass-by factor than we used. And so, in other words, they're assuming more trips will actually be taken offthe roadway. The county has a cap now. It was 25 percent for a shopping center. That one used 33 percent. So there are differences, and even the overall assumptions that are made in terms of the land uses. The other one is in the office complex. And ITE has this where you have separate office buildings, what they'll do is sugges! if they're not all interconnected, is to run each office building as a separate use. And so when you do that - and that's how the'99 study was done -- you'll come up with a higher trip generation. Current standards with the staffis to use an aggregated amount. So we have 150,000 square feet of office use, so we run that as a singular office use. The '99 study did it as 30,000, 40,000, and 80,000, and that's consistent with ITE direction. So that was direct there. But what your staffwill do is adopt policies and procedures that are slightly different, and that's why we go through a methodology with your staft and that's what we did in this case. So in terms of what you're asking to do to a certain extent is compare apples to oranges as far as that goes. Page 21 of69 November 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I might say that about the way you approached it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAN: To be honest with you, when we're presenting with a project that says its basis for its new request is that we're reducing the traffrc count on the roads because we're going X from what it was originally approved for for this, now I'm finding out you're not really going by what it's originally approved for. You're going by what it's originally requested with the new multiples that you want to use from the new ITE manual, not what they used back in 1999. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, and I -- no -- and, yes, because we're required to, and you require that as -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. You're required to for your new proposal. I'm -- Mr. Sawyer, would you mind coming up and helping me understand what your office would require in regards to looking at the old TIS. And my first question, Mike, will be, did you receive the old TIS? MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike Sawyer, transportation - transportation -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: You think about it. Look it up. MR. SAWYER: Transportation planner, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do that a lot, Mike, so don't worry. MR. SAWYER: There's just a page falling out of my grasp. It pushes me all over the place. Yes, I did receive the 1999 TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. First of all, checkbook concurrency. Are you familiar with that phraseology? MR. SAWYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It did exist in this county once, and it was supposed to be the cure-all to all the problems and how we're not going to allow roads to get too bad because we've got this great way of keeping track of all the vested ability to be on the road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAN: How is this project entered into the checkbook concurrency system? The existing project. Im not talking about the new one. MR. SAWYER: No, no, no. Briefly, what we're looking at with both the GMP as well as the PIID, we are looking at a five-year window. Is there capacity on the existing roadway system to accommodate the project that is being put forward for our review. That is, in essence, what we look at if there is capacity on the roadway system according to the applicable AUIR at the time of review. That's what we look at, and that's how we deem it either consistent or not consistent within the GMP. Not only that but this is also in a TCMA area which allows a project to come forward. Even if there is a problem on the adjacent road network, there are mitigations that are done if they do, in fact, impact those adjacent roadways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, the question was, we have a checkbook concurrency system supposedly, and I had understood when it was initiated, what, a decade ago that as a project was approved, its trips that were vested for the road would be entered into this checkbook concurrency so we'd always know when we had a problem. My simple question was, what was entered for this project? And Trinity may have the answer. She's standing behind you. MR. SAWYER: I'm sure she'll be able to better answer it than I. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Or she'll be able to spin it; I understand. Go ahead. It's easy. Transportation's a hard one to understand, and I'll be the first to tell you I don't understand it as thoroughly as I wish. I constantly am baffled by a lot of issues. We need clarity on this one, because this is a little more intense in regards to what's being asked and on a road system that's probably one of the worst in the county, and I want to be careful. MS. SCOTT: Trinity Scott transportation manager, for the record and, obviously, spin master by your Chair. Checkbook conculrency, how it occurs is we have our background traffic, and we have a trip bank. Page2Z of 69 November 16,2017 So as someone comes in for a Site Development Plan or their PPL, they pay a portion of their impact fees, which has changed through the years in whether they paid it all, whether they paid half, whether they paid a third, and they received a certificate of adequate public facility. When they do that, their trips are then banked in what we call our trip bank. So it's kind of your checkbook. The background traffic, you have your volume of the roadway or, I'm sorry, the capacity of the roadway is kind ofyour balance, and then you subtract out the background traffrc, and you subtract out the bank trips, which are, as I said, as they come in for PPL. Once they get on the ground and they are CO'ed, we pull them out of the trip bank because they've become parl of your background traffic. Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. How, then, is this project's current status, not the new proposed, current status looked at in regards to trip bank capacif versus -- which is kind of like checkbook. That's the explanation for checkbook concurrency. MS. SCOTT: Right. So this is for one -- CFTAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how they reside in that system now? MS. SCOTT: This one right now would be parl of background traffic because it has existing unit - existing buildings that are out there. Now, the additional square footage that was not built but was approved by the PUD would be subject to fuilher concurrency standards if it came in. So if this action did not occur at all and they came in and they wanted to build what was remaining that's allowable with the PUD, they would be subject to concurrency standards which, as Mike alluded to, it's also in the Transporlation Concurrency Management Are4 which would allow them to be exempt from concurrency management if they followed certain provisions outlined in our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that part I, unfortunately, understand. I mean, to say that the two worst roads in the county are part of a TCMA that's supposed to make everything okay to keep cluttering them up, I'm not sure that's a really good idea from a policy standpoin! but I know it's on the books, and that's the way it is. But I'm trying to understand, then, how would this -- see, the premise for adding the higher density than what's allowed by the GMP -- and the whole reason they're in for a GMP change is that they're not really going to have more -- greater impact on the road from the originally approved project. The originally approved project's TIS has a different way of calculating it. Which do you guys use? Do you use what the original project was approved at to understand the impacts, or are you constantly recalculating all the projects every time you have a COA request or anything like that? MS. SCOTT: We are not recalculating when they come in for CO -- well, I shouldn't say that. So when they come in today and they do their TIS guidelines, when they come in for their SDP or their PPL, let's just say it's four years down the road, they're going to use the most current version of the ITE manual at that time. So if we're in Volume 14 at that time, this PUD document we're not going to make them go back and use the 1Oth edition. They're using the latest edition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that brings another question for this panel, especially. We routinely now put trip caps. In fact there's a project coming up next that has a trip cap of something -- a one-liner - transportation had a one-line item in that whole PUD, which is very rare for you guys, but in that one line it's simply saying the trip cap is X. Are you saying that trip cap then fluctuates with the ITE standards throughout time? MS. SCOTT: It does not. But what I will tell you is you have people with - from standing behind me who hate that fip cap because let's just say today a single-family home uses seven trips, or let's just say it's two trips in the p.m. peak. If later on that ITE trip generation manual changes to say that it's three trips in the p.m. peak, then they can't build as many units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you read the TIS that was originally provided on this project for today's meeting? MS. SCOTT: I did not. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I have another question of Mike. Thank you, Trinity. Page 23 of69 November 16,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. While the traff,rc people are up here -- and I know you have the floor, and I apologizefor the intemrption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rather than bring them back up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not done with them yet. COMMISSIONERFRYER: No,I know; I know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're done with them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But this follows closely what we're talking about, and that is Land Development Code 4.07.02, which sets design requirements as applicable to PUDs. And it says in Section D.3 that the Board of County Commissioners may lessen density or intensity of development when it has been determined that development to the maximum density or intensity permissible would create traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin or lead to the PUD. So unless I'm misinterpreting this, I take it that when this comes to the BCC, they are going to be able to look beyond AUIR considerations of deficiency and make a practical decision that the congestion is going to be worse and, therefore, we're going to reduce what would otherwise have been permissible. Am I reading this correctly? If - so the BCC, then shouldn't we also, as the Planning Commission, be looking at it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's the focus of all the questions. I don't know if Ray or anybody else wants to weigh in, but I think that's why -- that's why I am asking these questions. Im trying to establish their justification for 130 units more than what they should be allowed by the GMP, and then the GMP is another level altogether. I'm probably more comfortable that they can equate to a lower level of residential, but I'm not satisfied yet that they can equate to a higher level of residential, and that's why I'm asking the questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so the comments that were made by someone on behalf of the developer of the NIM to the effect that the people really don't have a say in this anymore, I think that's contradicted by the ordinance that Ijust cited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the final conclusion is everybody has a say until the elected offrcials get done with it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Stan, then Tom. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It will go quick. Does anyone ever ground-tmth the assumptions that are made after the project is built? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Annual traffic counts; isn't that the way you do that? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, you do traffic counts on roads, but does anybody sit at your entrance and -- MS. SCOTT: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Groundtruthing. MS. SCOTT: It's purely based on what's happening out on the main network, and we are doing traffic counts throughout the year. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay CHAIRMAN STRAN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: This question's for Mike or for Trinity. Are you confident that the changes proposed will not increase traffrc trips? MR. SAWYER: Again, forthe record, Mike Sawyer. Again, I did look at the trip counts that we were provided for, both the current ninth edition, which was the TIS that was provided to us, as well as the 1999 version. Again, that's the sixth edition. Looking at the information that was provided to us, it does appear that the project will have fewer trips on the network. There isn't a large change to it, I believe it's about 38 trips p.m. peak, but that is what it appears to be showing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In relation to what is actual and current or what is permitted? Page 24 of 69 November 16,2017 MR. SAWYER: What is permitted. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think that's an important distinction, because it looks to me as though it's going to -- and I think this may have been Tom's question -- that this project will increase traffic on Pine Ridge in relation to current actual traffic. MR. SAWYER: If you're talking about what is already in the ground currently, if you're talking about the t ip. - COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I'm talking about, what we experience day in and day out driving on Pine Ridge. MR. SAWYER: Yes, because they still have development rights to the existing square footage that's allowed by -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not talking law. I'm talking ffaffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think what Mike's trying to say is they're not built out for the total commercial and office they could put there. So if they did build ou! it would be different than what it is today, and he's trying to separate that issue out for you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The reason it's not built out is because it financially didn't make sense to build it out, I would assume. MR. SAWYER: I can't answerthat. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I know you can't. But tlat's an assumption I'm making. MR. SAWYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So just so that I'm clear, this project although it may be a reduction of what is permitted if they were to build out commercially and if the commercial demand supported the enterprise, but when compared to actual current fraffrc on Pine Ridge, it's going to result in more trips? And I think that was Tom's question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I think that's the answer we're still trying to get. The idea of more trips is a comparison to the buildout of the previous project to the buildout of the new and proposed projecl and I don't think we've -- at least I haven't gotten my answer satisfied to that effect yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, neither -- well, then I -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Tom, did you have -- MR. EASTMAN: I was mostly concerned with what they have to do - the rights that they have to build now and the trips that it would generate versus the rights that they're asking for with this change and the tips that it would generate, and I think Mike answered my question very clearly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have a followup to your question on Mike's basis. Mike, you had said you reviewed this and you believe, based on what you reviewed at the time, that this is basically consistent with the trip counts. Did you have the old TIS that you were sent yesterday at that time? MR. SAWYER: Yes. Yes,I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why'd you ask me for it? MR. SAWYER: I'm sorry. I apologize. I thought you meant today. I did not have it before you gave it to me yesterday. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So your analysis that you responded to Tom Eastman, that was based on your conclusions that are in the staffreport? MR. SAWYER: Partly, but since that time I have also looked at the '99 study as well. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Now, what is the trip cap on the'99 study? MR. SAWYER: I don't believe that there was a trip cap on the '99 study; however, the trip study does say that there were going to be 812 p.m. peak net trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you were to use that and insert this into this process in front of us today for the proposed units, where would that fall in Norm's tables; do you know? MR. SAWYER: I believe that - hang on. The existing allowable PUD would have736 p.m. peak trips. The proposed would have 698 p.m. peak trips. Page 25 of69 November 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well -- MR. SAWYER: Again, that's net. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I'm looking at -- you're probably looking at Table 2C onthe traffrc report, which is Page 7. It's Page 98 of the PDF, and it's Page 198 of the electronic version. The reason I'm bringing that up, it says, proposed PUDA non-pass-by 7,100 for 24hour,two-way volume. It goes into p.m. peak hour enter and exit for a net 661 total. You see where I'm talking about? Okay. What, Norm? MR. TREBILCOCK: I can square it away for you, hopefully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, you can't. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, let me try just one simple statement. Using the 1999 study, just werre -- you remember the PUD trip cap. As Mike said, there wasn't a trip cap established at the PUD in 1999, okay, but if I use the 1999 study, okay, and use the same language that we're currently using, the 1999 study would establish the gross p.m. two-way peak-hour trips at 1,134 trips. Our trip cap proposed in the PUD proposedis942 p.m. peak hour trips. And the difference is, as I explained earlier in terms of using the current standards and methodologies - but if we had a cap back then, what we're proposing is lesser. And then when we move to -- so from my perspective, if we use what you're suggesting, that would be preferable because it allows a greater amount of impacts, okay. We're agreeable with staffto not do that. And just so we understand, too, kind of answering the followup about the NIM, our initial analysis, again, for what you all look at -- because you look at it from a zoning perspective, okay, of what zoning allows versus what it doesn't allow. So we did our analysis and clearly showed that this proposal is a lesser impact so the study stops. Okay. From the NIM, though, it came up that folks were concerned about what are the actual trips, just as the question that came up today. So we've updated the TIS, and we show you the link traffic we typically use for a Site Development Plan for actually operational analysis, and we did the trip bank that Trinity had mentioned. ln addition, what we do when we look at the background, to grow the background, we also put in a growth factor on that road. So - and we'll use the higher of the two. We'll use the higher of a growth factor or the trip bank. So, conservatively, we're trying to look at the same kind of issues that you all are. And then when we look at the percentage of level-of-service impact as was read, we are below the 2 percent where you need to look at another link; yet then we looked at another link, and the other link was still fine as well as in the analysis. So we've gone above and beyond what the normal standard is for the analysis for what is required for you all review. That study was provided to you in addition to match up to the growth conversions. We're providing an updated TIS, per Mike's review, and we're also updating that TIS to the 2017 AUIR to keep things as fresh as possible for you. But, again, those numbers show, for the purpose of what you all are looking at, this proposal is a lesser impact than what is currently allowed per zoning from a traffic standpoint. If you would like me to use the 1999 trip numbers and do a differential, I'll gladly do that. It just gives more room. Again, what your staff has done is going to more current things that brings it down so it brings down the amount of impacts we can potentially have. So just to help you there, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me start over. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: I started out with a question, and you thought you had an answer for it. MR. TREBILCOCK: I thought I did. Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not even close. So I appreciate all that commentary, but that's not what I'm trying to understand. An{ Norm -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - maybe I'm different than all the people in this room or elsewhere. I can't understand how you guys calculate things. I wish I could. It is probably one of the biggest mysteries I've experienced in my 20 years sitting, practically, on this board. Page 26 of 69 November 16,2017 MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I haven't seen one of you come in with any explanation that I can understand, and maybe it's just -- I'm just not schooled enough to do that. So you're going to have to help me. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. I'll help however I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, ifwe've got -- in the TIS that was provided in'99, it says, the project is expected to add 7,114 trips to the adjacent roadway network on a daily basis. If you go to Table 2C, a 24-hour two-way volume forthe proposed PUD, which is yours, is 7,100. The approved PUD says7,952. Does that 7,952 really correlate to the 7,1 1 4? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, because, again, it's using the current standards for that. That's all. That's how we're doing the comparison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is using the current standard, 7,114 or the 7,952? Where did the 7,952 comefrom? MR. TREBILCOCK: That would be the sixth edition. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: So the sixth edition took the previous '99 trip calculation and increased it to 7,952; is that what you're saying? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. What -- okay. Again, what -- let's see. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAN: [n the executive summary for the '99 TIS, it said, the project is expected to add7,l14 trips to the adjacent roadway network on a daily basis. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: All I'm trying to find is, where is that number incorporated into your analysis? Even if you had to change it because of the current ITE. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, I'm sorry. I understand completely now. That would be -- our total net approved PUD allowed is7,952. That's Page 7 of the Traffic Impact Statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that would compare to the 7,114 that I've been asking about. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. And, again, that's a daily basis. And under that study, you had, again, different assumptions in terms of reduction factors and such. But from the peak-hour standpoint - and that's the matrix that the county uses for concurrency, because that's -- that p.m. peak hour, that's where we have the lesser amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I don't understand how you create your numbers, but I do know enough math to create numbers. And so what I did is, instead of 7,952, if you use 7 ,144, and you create the same ratio to that number that you did for your 7,100 in both entering and exiting, you end up with having an approved PUD with less total than the total of the proposed PUD. That's the crux of where I'm trying to come from. I understand that you got to the new PUD - the old PUD being greater than your new one, but you did it because you used the new multiplier on the old TIS and that -- if you'd use the old TIS numbers, which is what I was concerned, the checkbook concurrency and vesting was set upon, that's the comparison I was trying to find out. And based on the ratios that I came up with, you're not -- it's not the same as yours. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. But that's actually the executive summary number. If you really look at their -- let me see. The net new trips at buildout, they're showing 812 in the peak hour there, which is -- again, we're showing a lesser amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight hundred twelve, yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: And that's the key matrix. So there are different values, you're right. You have a daily volume, but the p.m. peak hour is the one that you use for concurency, because that's where you feel the capacity impact the most, because if the traffic gets distributed throughout the day, it's not necessarily an issue. But the peak hour and the peak direction, which is the p.m. peak is the key, and that's the key matrix we use, and that's why this is a lesser amount. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Im going to try to move on past the numbers, because I could talk to you for hours tying to figure this thing out. I'm done with that. MR. TREBILCOCK: No,I understand. Yep, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When do you see this project coming online? Is it something that -- I mean, they're in for PUD. Is it going to be built rather rapidly? Because the improvements on Pine Ridge from Page27 of69 November 16,2011 Airport to Livingston and Livingston to l-15 are going to occur in 2025. 2018 for Livingston to I -- I'm sorry. From Shirley to Airport and Airport to Livingston, they're supposed to be road improvements in 2025 there. Will this project be completed after that date? I'm sorry. The deficiency will be that. Yeah, now I'm reading rt. The improvements were only for the piece from Livingston -- wow, Livingston. There's no - Trinity, can you -- when are we going to be improving Pine Ridge Road to the concerns that are shown on the AUIR that was just passed by the Board yesterday that shows deficiencies in 2018 and2025? I mean, this project's coming right in the middle of that. MS. SCOTT: We have on the Pine Ridge section - I'm trying to get to my right attachment here in my AUIR. The Pine Ridge section from Livingston to Airport we have a study that's ongoing right now, and that's to do operational improvements, and we have construction shown n2021 and2022. And that will do operational improvements to -- based on our analysis right now, take us through 2040 onthat with multiple intersection improvements including some minor improvements to the interchange area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is that supposed to rise -- to raise its effective level of service from whatever standard it is? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That means the road will flow better in diversion time and all that good stuffyou guys are -- MS. SCOTT: Yes, diversion time and, yes, the continuous flow intersection, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So if this project didn't build those additional densities until that time, we'd be in a lot better shape? MS. SCOTT: As I said, they're in a TCMA. They're able to be exempt from checkbook concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So do the TCMA exempt them from checkbook concurrency for anything they ask for or just what they could have obtained versus what they want? I mean, they're asking for 130 units more than what's allowed by the GMP, so have you guys already calculated that in your TCMA that all these developers could come in and change everything and say we just want more, and it's still okay with the TCMA? MS. SCOTT: The TCMA has to operate all of the lane miles at 85 percent of the acceptable capacity, the acceptable level of service, and currently right now that TCMA has one section that is currently failing. It does have other sections that are projected to fail, but we have other improvements that we're also looking at adding within that are4 such as Veterans Memorial, to relieve Immokalee Road. You also have Vanderbilt Beach Road that we plan on widening, as well as Airport Road all within the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I think I might have missed my question. The TCMA, when it was created, was it created based on the road systems and the capacities that our GMP allowed at the time as thinking what the buildout and capacities would be that the TCMA would have to manage? MS. SCOTT: I honestly couldn't answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Who could? MS. SCOTT: Probably my husband. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he here? MS. SCOTT: He's not. But he was here when they were developed. So I honestly wasn't here when they were developed, nor was I involved in transportation. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: If the TCMA was created to handle what was expected for the roads, and all of a sudden it's arbitrarily changed by any number of projects along the way higher than what was expected by the GMP, which is the overriding document for density, you've got to wonder how you would have thought that TCMA could have existed or could have gone forward. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maybe Nick could come up. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's all I've got on transportation. I'll -- what I've got there. MS. SCOTT: If I could just -- there is one provision within the GMP, it's Policy 5.6, the Transportation Elemenl that talks about what a TCMA is. It's to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple viable alternative travel Page 28 of69 November 16,2017 paths or modes for common trips. This particular subject property has access to transit; multiple transit routes go. They actually transfer at this existing site, and I believe we're working on keeping that incorporated in there. And it has relatively good transit service, comparatively around the county. Other areas have 90-minute headways and things like that. But they do have multiple buses coming in this area. And it also does have multiple arterial roadways within the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Trinity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess the next question is of maybe Wayne. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The existing amount of commercial on the ground is -- I'm finding - I've checked to see what our internal banking system had, and it shows you only have 47,911 square feet left to build, but I keep hearing a number around 2004. This one's calling out an existing building in the northeast corner: The Pine Ridge Common SDP, the Magnolia Square SDP, and the Partners Bank SDP as four separate structures or SDPs that were built, and that leaves atotal47,9ll square feet. Do you know how they would have gotten to that? Are you positive on your 200 and whatever number you've got? I mean, you're the owners of it. You should know what you've got there. I just don't know why the county's got a difFerent number. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know where the county obtained their numbers. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, if we go to the -- I mean, maybe you know this guy. Do you know a guy named Charles Rogers with Cortelious? MR. ARNOLD: I do not know him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. He wrote on behalf ofthe Pine Ridge Common PUD. He says there's 205,878 thousand (sic) square feet as of November 2014, and you're at204-, so you're preffy close. ln 2016he sent another letter saying there's 120,983. I'm just trying to understand how someone's going to have to ground-truth amount of square footage that you've already got to know what you've got out there, so... MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think Mr. Trebilcock's numbers reflect pretty accurately the figures that represent what's been built to date. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I forgot Terri needs a break. We'll take a break. We'll come back at 1 1 clock. We may end up breaking for lunch sooner than we normally do, Terri. So come back in 10 minutes, or 1l:01. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats, we'll assume. Wayne, something else that's probably going to need to be cleared up at some point or another, your last monitoring report that was submitted, and it was in20l2,I don't know why the county accepted this if the internal document showed you didn't have this much -- you had more than this built. But the monitoring report said you have 121,288 square feet built. So, again, some of that stuffs got to be correlated, and I guess it can happen down the road, but -- and I will not let the question die. So at some point when you come back in, I'll still have that question. We need to get it resolved. I'm hoping that the folks over doing our cenftal - our CTS -- I don't know what that - keep track of it, who are listening to some of this, maybe they can have answers when I get back. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I think part of the issue may be the way that PUD monitoring has been completed in the past. Each owner of the PUD would submit a PUD monitoring report. Now the county requires us to have one PUD monitoring report, one entity. So I think going forward we are going to have much better and accurate figures for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to get that before you finalize your PI-ID, because you're a ways away yet. You may want to get all that resubmitted and corrected so the record's right, and then it all matches up. It might be a good way to do it. Let me see what else I've got. There's one other thing I wanted to mention to you. Oh, there's a DCA out there. Did you know thal a Developer Confibution Agreement? Basically, it says you've got Page 29 of 69 November 16-2017 $438,000 in impact fees. Have those been used up yet? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you intending to pay impact fees on your new residential units to whatever they are, and that will be offset by whatever's remaining on the 438-? You didn't look at the DCA as 100 percent wiping out of your impact fee commitment, did you? MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't believe we did. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Only to the extent it's on the DCA. Okay. That's all the questions I've got on your end ofthings, so. MR. ARNOLD: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for ending? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I appreciate that too. You know, the whole thing, though, I still don't understand the transportation, and I wish I did. MR. ARNOLD: Do you want me to try to explain it for you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, just like you did the market. That would be really good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This might have to come back. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Actually, Norm's a great guy, but I probably need to spend a week with him trying to understand from the very basics how they come up -- how the engineers do their thing, because -- I don't know. I just have never been able to follow it correctly, so... Thank you, sir. MR. ARNOLD: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Sue, is there a staffreport? MS. FALKNER: Yes. Good morning. I'm Sue Falkner, Comprehensive Planning. And the first thing Id like to do is clarif, my statement to you, Mr. Chairman, from yesterday. I misspoke. The table on Page 38 of the market study indicates some potential costs for the market-rate housing, and the top dollar is for a three-bedroom, and it's2,313. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FALKNER: So I apologize for misspeaking. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No, that's no problem. I just - I didn't know if I heard you right and you just corrected it. So thank you. MS. FALKNER: No, I misspoke, sorry. Anyway, I didn't actually have that information with me at the time. I was talking from memory. Anyway, the first thing I would like to do is just make a few statements that have to do with our staff report. And the first is Goodlette/Pine Ridge mixed-use subdistrict is in an urban project. It's located in close proximity to goods and services. It shares characteristics of the mixed-use activity center subdistricts we have, including mixed use, high density, location at major intersections, and proximity to residential development. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development. There are no adverse environmental effects, impacts as a result of this petition. There's no historic or archaeological sites that have been affected by this amendment. Transportation-related concerns were brought forward at the NIM and, as a result of that, I went on to state that Transportation Planning had indicated that this project would not cause an increase in the traffic. They did state that it would be a net decrease, so that was a statement made. There are no infrastructure concerns as a result ofthis, such as utilities that are created by this petition. And the proposed uses are generally compatible with the surrounding areas. And we are recommending approval of this project for transmittal to the DEO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of stafl COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if I may. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It gets back to this ordinance that I read sections of, 4.07 .02. which seems to me to call upon the county commissioners when it comes to them to decide, that they are encumbered by measuring by the actual change against the projected change under the current zoning bu! Page 30 of69 November 16,2017 rather, they can look at the change in traffic that would result in relation to the actual current traffic, which I think we all concede is a net increase. And so under that statute, or that ordinance, since the county commissioners can look at it, and we being the Planning Commission and the local planning agency under the state statute, I think, have the ability to make recommendations that go beyond the limitation that perhaps staffhas imposed upon itself when you compare what the developer wants to do to what the developer could have done under the current PUD. And that's - the whole difference between the current situation and what was projected years and years ago to be the current situation is the essence of my concern over this. MS. FALKNER: Okay. And you have a question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I suppose if I had a question it would be, shouldn't you also be looking as carefully at current conditions as you do over projected, what was projected years ago to be a current condition? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoningand Planning director. Sue works within the Growth Management Plan team. The question is really relating to a Land Development Code question, so let me try to field that. But when it speaks about zoning, it doesn't -- I don't think it's directed towards the actual trips that the project is yielding based upon its current state of development. I believe that when it speaks of zoning, it references the maximum allowed intensity provided by that zoning. So that's the evaluation, I believe, that it's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, that's the whole question right there. It doesn't say "allowed." It says "maximum intensity," so maybe it's ambiguous. But I take away from that it means the current density rather than what could have been. MR. BOSI: The term "zoning," the term "zoning" is the key statement within that policy. It doesn't say project -- "project development" or "developed." It says "zoning." Zoningmeans what your zone allowed for. A project that's developed may be underneath what that zoning's allowed for. So I think the distinction, the term that you should be putting your focus upon is "zoning," and the zoning is -- many times within our PUDs, within our SDPs, they allow -- what's developed within an SDP does not reach the upper end of what's provided by the zoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, I didn't read all the context around this ordinance I cited. You could very well be correct. But I take it that you - neither you nor the County Attomey is telling us that we cannot take account of current conditions on Pine fudge. You're not saying that are you? MR. BOSI: Oh, you most certainly can take that with into (sic) your considerations and the evaluation of the project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: StAN? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike, has anyone ever looked at any infrastructure in Collier County and said, this infrastructure is severely stressed; we should probably do a moratorium? MR. BOSI: There has been a number of times where moratoriums have been imposed based upon concerns of impacts on the infrastructure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So what does it take to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get the mike a little closer. MR. BOSI: That would be a condition to repoft an evaluation from a staffperspective or by the Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners would have to adopt a moratorium within a specific period of time, and then within that specific period of time, develop, whether it be projects or policies that would address how development can move forward within that period of time allocated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the stafl (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: I have a few, Sue or Mike, whoever wants to answer it. The GMP amendment seems to be saying that they're going to be asking for multifamily rental housing. I'm reading it from the staffreport. Is that what your understanding is, whoever's reviewed this? Page 3l of69 November 16,2017 MS. FALKNER: Absolutely. Multifamily rental. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Do you see a difference between a multifamily rental as a product use and a torvnhome? MS. FALKNER: A difference in which way? In the impacts? CHAIRMAN STRAN: The PUD is saying they have two principal uses they're asking to be allowed. One is multifamily -- one is the multifamily; the other is townhome. And townhomes can be done fee simple and sold, and I'm not sure they're really considered rentals. And Im just wondering how we're relegating that or regulating that in regards to reviews of PUDs to follow this up after it's finished. MS. FALKNER: My understanding is that zoning does make a distinction in multifamily housing and so they could do either. But in the GMP they are being asked to put rental. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So how would we -- if they created townhomes -- MS. FALKNER: How would we enforce iq yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If they created townhomes and they did them fee simple, split them on their properly line, their boundary or their wall lines, how would you regulate that, or how is that going to be looked at? MR. WEEKS: Good moming, Commissioners. David Weeks in the Comprehensive Planning section. First of all, let me say that the data and analysis submitted by the applicant demonstrated a need for rental housinB, and so staff, I'll say, pushed the applicant to speci$ in their Comprehensive Plan amendment that it would be rental housing because we were not seeing any demonstrated need for, generically, multifamily, which could mean condominium or fee-simple ownership. And, ultimately, the applicant did acquiesce, did commit to rental housing in the Comprehensive Plan amendment; therefore, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the PUD will also have to limit the housing to rental. Now, the type of structure could vary. That's not limited, but it has to be rental to be consistent with the Comprehensive PIan amendment if this gets approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they could then put in - they could even put detached housing, they could do anything they wan! and it wouldn't be multifamily. So anything that's considered three units or more, because it's got - a duplex I don't think is multi, but even if it was, it's got to be more than one unit connected to it, let's say. You don't care about how it's sold. It could be sold fee simple, it could be maybe made a condominium and then rented out. How do we regulate that? I mean, you're asking us to consider something that you believe is needed. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And then how is it regulated? How do we know it's going to perform? MR. WEEKS: The language in the Comprehensive Plan amendment does say "rental apartments," so that's at least going to confine iq I believe, to three or more units in one structure. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So atownhome would be considered an apartment? MR. WEEKS: I believe -- as long as it meets the definition in the LDC then, yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's interesting, because they're asking for townhomes, too, and I thought that was odd compared to what this all seems to be lending itself towards. Okay. David, the market study, I know that this analysis for apartment housing just came out of the GIS department in November lst so you probably didn't have it to review the market study. But we couldn't get answers today because their market guy isn't here. Did you guys -- how did you -- I mean, because a lot of these in process - the nine in-process projects, almost 3,000 units, some of them have been in process for a year or two years. So how did you - did you guys know all this when you looked at the market study? Because the numbers in the market study showing what needs to be produced every year not only seem to be met, but they're being exceeded by the values of those in process, and I'm just wondering how we thought about that. MR. WEEKS: First, you're correc! that analysis that came out November lst, we did not have. What we do with market studies, be it housing in this case or be it commercial, we look at the information that the applicant provides for accuracy and for reasonableness. Accuracy would be looking at the inventory, in this case, of what was already there, the apartments already on the books, already built. Page 32 of 69 November 16.2017 And then for projections, we look for reasonableness of what their projections show, the demand that they're showing, we look at the population projections that they provide, compare them with those that the county prepares, in this case at the planning community level. There's properties in North Naples planning community. We also look at the amount of vacant land, you know, what are the other opportunities for apartment complexes to be built. In this case, say, in the North Naples planning community, and there's minimal opportunity because North Naples is a planing community that is closer to buildout than, certainly, those further to the east. We look at the population projections specific to this planning community as well as the Greater Naples urbanized area. And then we consider the demand in a generic sense. We have had, in discussions - I say "we," the county -- in discussions at the Affordable Housing Commission that meets, I think, monthly, also right up to the Affordable Housing Plan that the board adopted just last month identified -- again, generically, not specific numbers attached, that I'm aware of -- but generically identifuing a need for more rental apartments; that the occupancy has been, for some time, at or near 100 percent. So, again, without very specific information, but broadly speaking, recognizing that there is a need and there has been for some time, I think at least since the economic downturn and our recovery since, that there's a need for more rental apartments at all income levels, not -- certainly at affordable levels, but even at the market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ln previous GMP amendments, when you've required a market study -- I think you do for all of them anyway - th"y would look at a sphere, a radius, two, three, five miles, whatever. How is the Milano project -- and I'm - do you know - are you familiar with the location of that, way out -- it's -- MR. WEEKS: Yes,I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - a half mile or quarter mile east of 951. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How -- and south of I-75. How does that fit into the sphere of influence for this market study? MR. WEEKS: It really doesn't because the traditional - first of all, the Comprehensive Plan amendments that we receive usually are requesting commercial development -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: - and usually it's a broad range of commercial allowing retail, office, personal services, et cetera. And so the market study would be looking at either neighborhood community or regional commercial, all of which do have - and professional literature and ULI standards do speci$ those market study areas either based on concentric circles, distances from the subject site, or perhaps a drive time/distance from the subject site. That's not the case for residential. I am not aware of any particular type of sphere of influence that is applicable. We believe that it was reasonable what the applicant did, and that was to look at the entire coastal urban area or at least as far south as U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard intersection all the way up to the Lee County line and then all the way east to Collier Boulevard and slightly beyond to be within the urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is transmittal. And I know there can be a lot of changes during the adoption process, and by that process we should see the PUD, so we'll have more detail. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: They're asking for more units than the GMP requires, or would allow. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Say that we go through transmittal and we give them the benefit of the doubt on the 375 for another day, because there's a lot of things thag right now, I'll tell you, I am not -- I don't have answers for, and I'm concemed with it, but I know transmittal is only, for example, three votes of the Board, and adoption is the key. I also was surprised at some of the positions the applicant took today versus what I thought they had taken yesterday, because they didn't verbalize them, but I just figured I didn't hear an objection, so I thought I understood it better. Page 33 of69 November 76,2017 If they were to go through transmittal at37 5 today for the sake of argument, is there anlthing that entitles them based on that? I mean, the GMP I always saw as a document that allowed someone to ask for something, but it would be the implementation through the zoning process that tells us if they've really met the criteria to get what they're asking for. Is that still something that you perceive to be the process? MR. WEEKS: I do and, furthermore, the distinction between this being transmittal versus the adoption hearings. So if this were to be transmitted as submitted, you still have during your adoption review, both this body and the Board of County Commissioners, the ability to further limit what is being requested. You are not bound just because you approved it for transmittal, or recommended in this case, not bound by that. If for - I think it would have to be a reasonable -- you know, you would have to have some valid purpose -- excuse me - valid basis for recommending something different at adoption that's lesser but, absolutely, you have that. And then likewise, I think - I took it as a two-part question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fure. MR. WEEKS: If this plan amendment ultimately gets adopted and there are -- it's adopted at315 units, that is not a guarantee that the zoningmust be approved at 375 units as well. During that zoning review, the county has the ability, again, to say, is the infrastructure impact acceptable at 375 units? Is the project compatible as it is proposed in the zoning document with the surrounding area? And those typically are your two points of interest that could be a basis for a recommendation that's not in favor of a project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the compatibility standards, there are a lot more activities to be concemed about. For example, traffic has a compatibility issue. It's one of the findings of the PUD zoning and all that, so... MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So I like your answer. I appreciate it. One other piece, though; the DEO, it's not like the DCA, and they basically like everything. Like traffic engineers like all kinds of traffic; they never say no. And does that have any bearing on what we would have to be able to do with it? MR. WEEKS: Well, the only bearing I'd say is that we don't have big brother looking over our shoulder like we used to back when -- prior to the 2011 legislative changes that, in my words, defanged the state agency. Th"y are primarily limited to looking at important state resources. It's a vague term. And my experience is that for projects such as this, with the exception, potentially, of state roads, such as U.S. 41 nearby and,I-75, that there are no state resources that they would be looking at. And so I believe that generally speaking, that state agency looks at projects such as this as a local issue or at least an issue to which they do not have an abiliy to raise an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, there's been some questions raised and unanswered concerning the market study. Could this board rely on the fact that if this got through the transmittal that your department would relook at that market study in light of the new information we have that was more recently developed and possibly see how that works with it? MR. WEEKS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your conclusions, I assume, are based on what was submitted, and if what was submitted was missing a lot of information that we now have, I would ask that you reconsider your position on the market study or update it or have them update it or do something that tells us how they've taken this new information into consideration. MR. WEEKS: Sure. We'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got. Thankyou, David. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do have one question of transportation staff. It will be short, I promise. I hope. It could be your answer could make it long. MR. SAWYER: For the record, again Mike Sawyer, and it can be as long as you need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think everybody's probably getting tired of me talking too much today. Page 34 of 69 November 16,2011 Mike, the PUD has a conversion factor in it for this projecl but I noticed in the TIS that there's different ratios for traffrc for retail and office. So I noticed in the PUD there's only one conversion ratio. I would suggest that as the PUD goes through, so we're coordinated with any kind of adoption process, that the conversion rates match up to what we need in regards to whether it's retail or office conversion. I didn't look at it close enough because it wasn't really the issue for today, but I did catch that in reading it. I don't particularly like conversions, but we'll have to need evidence that that's a practical ratio for whatever one it is, and office may have a different ratio than retail. I would think it would. But that's something I just wanted to point out for you to look at. And the applicant is here today, so he'll know we're going to be looking at it more closely. MR. SAWYER: Staffwould definitely concur with that and there are a number of projects, just to let you know, that are looking at these types of conversion charts. And so staffis looking at those and furding methods where we coordinate some method, every time an SDP comes in, that we have a set document that also accompanies that submittal. So we have a chart that comes in with the submittal that shows what the actual is, what's allowed, what's already been permitted, and what's being proposed. So we would share that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thankyou, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Ray, do you want to call the first registered speaker. And if you come up to speak and you have not been sworn in, would you please let us know so we can get you swom in. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Lynn Miller. MS. MILLER: I'd like to give mytime to my fellow HOA member. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. She'll concede hertime. MR. BELLOWS: Ray Piacente. MR. PIACENTE: What is my time limit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you just tell us what you -- if you're getting redundant, we'll stop you. MR. PTACENTE: Okay. Allright. Good morning, Chairman and fellow commissioners. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today. For the record, my name is Ray Piacente. I'm a resident of Northgate Village. My address is 1593 Northgate Drive. I've been a resident of Northgate Village for approximately seven-and-a-half years. I'm also a board member of the Northgate Village HOA, and I've been asked to speak on their behalf as well as several of the association members of our community. Just to provide you a little history of our community, Northgate subdivision is a single-family subdivision which is approximately 180 feet south of this parcel. Our subdivision was developed in the early 1980s, and the last phase of our development was completed in 1990. Our subdivision abuts both Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge Road and our immediate neighbors to the south are Moorings Park and Big Cypress Estates, which was originally associated with the Country Club of Naples. Our current residential home values in our neighborhood vary from approximately 450,000 to over 800,000. We acknowledge and understand that the subject matter being discussed today is a hearing on a proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan; however, based on our review and understanding of the proposed changes, there are several proposed changes that are very specific and not generalized as you would see in a typical petition dealing with a Comprehensive Plan change. If these changes are approved to allow for more ease in obtaining approval for the proposed changes and the zorringfor the subject parcel, we feel that these types ofrequested changes should be vetted out through more appropriate application and public hearing process such as a change in zoning to the PUD. Page 35 of69 November 16- 2017 We would like to take this time and opportunity to voice our concems and comments for the record so that these can be carried forward through our process and upcomingzoning change to the PUD. We understand and acknowledge that these things do change and that a unit owner may need to change their strategy to address current and future market conditions; however, as a unit owner, we should be allowed to make changes to accommodate their needs. They shouldn't negate the affected unit owners to voice their opinions in regards to new issues that need to be addressed based on actual observed conditions. Below is the following list of comments and concerns that we have. Number one is traffic. Based on our review of the published traffic study, it appears that the proposed alternate design to include residential apartments would provide a slight decrease in the p.m. trips. It is our opinion that the traffic patterns between commercial and residential are very different, and with this potential change in use, it would certainly have an impact on both Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge Road. The current plazais mostly vacant at this time, so the traffic for the current commercial use is very light. Pine Ridge Road is already a congested roadway, and any increase in traffic will impact our neighborhood's travel through the community -- sorry -- lost my -- and increase the traffrc noise. All of the subdivisions that need a sound barrier wall, our subdivision should be on the top of the list. We are baffled why the county has not made the right decision to install a sound barrier wall along our subdivision as well as carrying it forward to the east along Quail Run subdivision as well. The current wall that is constructed for our neighborhood is just a typical 4- to 6-foot privacy wall that was initially designed/installed when Pine Ridge was just a two-lane roadway. With the proposed alternate design to include residential apaftments, this parcel could develop into a mixed-use development which could be similar to the likes of a Mercato. With this possibility, we have concems with amplified noise and restaurants turning into nightclubs or after-hour clubs. Our neighborhood has had first-hand experience in this nightmare scenario with local restaurants that turn into a nightclub and have amplified music in the evening and late-night hours. Examples include Noodles and the former Caz (phonetic) bar. The only protection of our rights is the noise ordinance, which has not provided us satisfactory results to date. We've had to enlist the help of both Collier County Code Enforcement and local police to fight the noise and disruption from these establishments. We find it hard to believe how this proposed use is compatible to our subdivision where our resident homes are less than 180 feet from this parcel. Including an amplified sound provision, an upcoming zoning change to the PUD must be done. The actual location of the commercial enterprises and their accessible doors and windows within this parcel should be specifically identified and addressed so that any noise can be directed away from our subdivision. Our third concern is building heights. With the proposed change to the Comprehensive PIan, it appears that the proposed alternate design to include residential units would allow for four stories over parking which, in reality, is a five-story building. The current PUD only allows three stories with a max height of 50 feet. Our viewpoint to the north will certainly be impacted. We would ask that any residential development be designed fuither nofth of the parcel so that our line of sight remains the same and that the future zoning change in the PUD would have a clear demarcation of where this development would occur so that our line of sight is not negatively impacted. And, finally, our last concem with - due to the increase of potential traffic or flow along Pine Ridge Road is that our subdivision is in close proximity to the Pine Ridge Middle School. And since we're in close proximity to this school, there is no bus pickup or drop-off. So most of our middle school students do exit a gate through our privacy wall and cross over Pine Ridge Road to enter the school via -- with the help of -- or assistzurce ofa crossing guard. So that is our concerns, for the record. We do want this parcel to be successful and would respectively ask that this commission and petitioner to acknowledge our concerns and make every effort in addressing these and hope that an agreed-upon compromise can be made between the Commission, our elected officials, our petitioner -- the petitioner and our association. As previously noted, if a unit owner is allowed to make changes to accommodate their needs, this shouldn't negate the affected unit owners' rights to voice their opinions regarding new issues that may be Page 36 of69 November 16,2017 addressed based on actual observed conditions. Most of our units (sic) have made a lifestyle decision to move into a family-oriented neighborhood, which has maintained an increased home value within a great school district, Iocated near the beach, and within close proximity to the shops and retail centers like the petition that is being reviewed today. Let's not make the mistakes or error in judgment of the past continue. Let's do the right thing and address these comments and concerns. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ray, how high of a sound wall would you need? MR. PIACENTE: I would suggest that it would be consistent with some of the other sound barrier walls, like on -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Like Wyndemere on 41 on the other side of -- MR. PIACENTE: Righg like Livingston Road and Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those things are about 72 feet,15 feet high. MR. PIACENTE: Right. We would probably be acceptable to that size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, the only comment I want to make is I made notes of the issues you raised, and I would hope that I'd see you when the PUD comes through, because I think, as I explained when we met, a lot of these issues are PUD resolved. The density is a - the density issue is the primary issue they're here for today, the switch in uses. And I -- you know, we don't put amplified sound issues and setbacks and like that into the GMP, necessarily. We wait for the zoning to happen at adoption, so... MR. PTACENTE: Right. I understand that. We just wanted to get our concerns noted for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm glad you did, because it will put the applicant on notice that they need to address them before they even come in, because when they come in, they'll be addressed again. So I appreciate it. Anybody else? MR. PLACENTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIACENTE: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Cindy? MS. BIJAN: I had planned to give my minutes to Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll ask the applicant if they want to have any rebuttal or summary, either way, whatever you want to... MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I don't think we have a direct rebuttal, but we're huppy to answer any addition questions that you may have now that you've heard public speakers. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, his questions, I would - or his points, I would strongly recommend to you to address before you come back here with a PIID, because right now fm unsettled with what you're asking. I don't believe you've done a very good job of addressing the market. You certainly haven't done a very good job in answering my questions. I know you tried. But that isn't -- I'm still uncomfortable with the traffrc. But this is transmittal, and there's some flexibility there. So I'm willing to go along with it, but I would ask that you guys try to cover your bases better on the issues that have been raised today. MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know Mr. Yovanovich is smiling like that's been done. And it may have been done to your satisfaction. It certainly hasn't been done to mine. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't like being called out like that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I don't need you making - MR. YOVANOVICH: We have never ever not met with our neighbors. You didn't hear me say Page 37 of69 November 16,2017 we're not going to meet with the neighbors. We fully expect to meet with Mr. Piacente and whoever he represents to do the best that we can to address their concerns. That's all I'm saying. And we have not had that opportunity to date to have that done, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAN: All I'm saying is he put some points on record. You can address those before you even come back -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is all I'm suggesting. MR. YOVANOVICH: We absolutely will. We've always done that. That's our standard operating procedure. We don't always agree, but we do meet and discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions or comments? If not, we'll close the public hearing and I'll be -- well, first of all, for -- if there's any discussion or however you want to handle lt. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a couple of items. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: After listening to you guys talk about NIM and who said what and when they said it and unknown speaker, and I can't tell this and I can't tell that, I go back to, we should do a video of the NIMs because that way you know who said what and where. Okay. That's just my point of view. I keep hearing from everybody that malls are on the way out, because of Internet. And I remember Grand Central Station for a long time, and even Ned alluded to the fact that maybe you shouldn't build out your shopping because it's going to be a losing proposition. So I'm thinking the logical thing to put here would be - you know, you've got an industrial park here. You've got shopping diagonally. Multifamily doesn't sound bad to me here. But I guess maybe there are some issues that have to be resolved. I was going to ask Norm to do a little summation of where he gets his numbers from. I know he didn't pull them out of his - out of thin air -- out of thin air but you know, I thought he did a pretty good job. You know, I used this standard and that standard, and we're required to use these standards. So it seems like, you know -- I made a joke that - the old engineering saying is if it's mathematics -- if it's incomprehensible, it's mathematics. If it doesn't make sense, it's economics or transportation. You know, I kind of see where maybe you don't understand where they got the numbers, but they're limited in how they do this. It's the engineering standards that you have to apply. And, you know, unless we're willing to start talking moratorium on these roads, you know, I don't see where you have a choice but to do -- you know, the guy wants to go from a losing proposition to what I've heard from staffis, you know, we need more apartments. So I don't have a problem with this. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only caveat I want to say, Stan, my questioning was centered around the fact that they're requesting more density than is allowed by the Growth Management Plan, which would set the basis for the road system and everything else we have in Collier County. I have been concerned, I still am concerned, on how that is impacted by allowing 130 units over the 245. I think that's approximately what it is. That's almost 50 percent more. That's the issue of my concern. We've heard traffic engineers come before us for all these years, and every one says, we've got -- we're doing better than what we could do; therefore, we're not going to have a problem with the road. You know, we've got roads that are problems. You can't drive out here and say they're not. They are. And it hasn't gotten any better, and it may not get better. I just want to make sure we're not going to arbitrarily make it worse, and that's their job to prove And at this point I'm willing to support the transmittal, but there's going to be a lot more hard questions at adoption to finalize things. Transmittal is something that is a -- basically a test to see how it floats, and it only needs three votes from the Board, and then it comes back to us with more detail with the PUD and the adoption. So I'm willing to go that far, but I think the questions are going to be just as hard at that level. Page 38 of69 November 16,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many more times do you think we'll see this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once more. I would expect that the PUD and the adoption would come through at the same time unless -- Ray's nodding yes, so that's normally what we do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are you saying the 245 is what you're looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm - the 375 - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If you're concerned about that traffic, that would alleviate -- CFhIRMAN STRAN: I know that - COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: -- traffic, because if they develop commercial rightnow, all of it, they have a certain amount of trips, and there's not -- and that's -- you can't change that now, but -- and if you add the 375 with commercial, the trips stay the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If you drop the residential number, there would be less traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAN: What they're proposing is to build residential in lieu of commercial, and that's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. But leave some ofthe commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, yeah. It's already built. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So I'm willing to go forward, for my vote at least, to see what they've got to say when they come back on adoption with a detailed PUD to see how this fits together. I've put everything I had in mind on the record today as far as concems and questions. I don't believe they met the standard for the market study, but they can clean it up by adoption. I still don't understand enough of this tansportation stuff, but Im going to get together with Mr. Sawyer between now and then and ty to learn more. The transportation is the biggest issue. But we have the absolute ability, when it comes back for adoption and PUD, to change it at both those levels to whatever is proven to be the right thing to do at that time. So for the benefit ofthe doubt - and I didn't hear an objection to the density. I heard an objection to various compatibility issues -- not objections -- concerns that we can -- that we can make sure they're met. So from that perspective, I'm willing to go along with it until we get to the next level, and that's my position. I don't know if that's what you were trying to say, Karen, or not, but that's where I'm coming from, so... COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anything else? With that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chair, I'm in complete agreement with your comments, and I'm going to vote, I think, the same way, for fansmittal earnest hopes that when it does come back a lot of these issues will be favorably resolved. One thing that I would ask, that as these types of things are considered in the future with respect to transportation, that we - that staffplaces some emphasis or at least covers the comparison to current actual conditions as well as what the developer could have done under the already approved development. And the other thing that was mentioned in the NIM that I didn't hear very much of today has to do with what time of day is important. And right now we look at p.m. peak. And, of course, that is significant. But when you move from commercial to residential, you're going to create, potentially, a rush hour problem as well, because I don't think all the folks living in the residential area are going to be walking to work. And so early in the moming and late at night you're going to increase your traffic congestion on an already highly congested road. So those are my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else before we vote? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Talking about p.m. peak. I have asked transportation to start doing a.m. peak hours and directional traffic, because I'm seeing a lot going the other way. It's not just p.m. peak. I think we need to start doing some a.m. peak hour also' COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The thing is, people tend to leave their houses in the morning all different times. I used to leave an hour early just to get into the office early to avoid a little bit traffic. -Buttoo many businesses just -- five o'clock. The county, five o'clock, that's it. Everybody leaves at Page 39 of 69 November 16,2017 the same time. So they tend to go with p.m. peak for that reason. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We need a.m., too. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But it won't show you any more than p.m. peak, I'm preffy sure, but okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've all had our discussion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move we approve it for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for transmittal to the state. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAN: All in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you all, for the enjoyable training this morning, most notably is the transportation part of it. So with that, it's I 1:45. We are not going to get through the GL Homes process quickly. There's a lot of issues on that one that need to be discussed, just for the record. So I would suggest we take an hour lunch, and then come back and finish that one up when we come back. How do the rest of you feel? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sounds right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We'll break now from 1l:45, and we'll return at 12:45 after lunch. (A luncheon recess was had.) CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from our lunch break. We have two items left on the agenda. They are both about the same project, so we will discuss them concurrently, and we'll vote on them separately. {<**The first one is Item 9C. It's PL20160001100. It's the Logan Boulevard/lmmokalee Road -- well, this one is the Growth Management Plan amendment, and the PL20160001089, same location, Logan/Immokalee Road for the CPUD for the Planned Unit Development ordinance, and it's the GL Homes commercial tract that we're looking at. So with that in mind, will everybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start down with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Nothing other than things that are part of the public record. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. About tha! yeah. I think some emails, but I don't think I talked to anybody about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: yeah, I talked with Mr. Ratterree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: okay. And I had met with the applicant's representatives earlier this week. I'd talked to -- I met with a neighbor from Saturnia Lakes yesterday. I talked tt various staffmembers about the project talked to John Nicola before the project started this morning, and I think that's all other than thetypical emails and files that we've gotten. Page 40 of 69 November 16,2017 Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just typical. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. With that, Bruce, it's all yours. Did you wantto say something, did you say? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Bruce, I want to acknowledge that this is your last meeting with us, because you are retiring, and you won't be with us in December. But I wanted to say thank you for being with us all this time. I appreciate it. MR. ANDERSON: Thankyou. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We will miss you. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I emphatically endorse what she said. You've been a pleasure to work with, Bruce. And I know we're not -- contary to you, he'll be back, and he's going to use anything we say now saying, remember, I'm always right. You said that, so -- but he's been -- MR. ANDERSON: I promised myself I would not become a commission groupie. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Whose district do you live in? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I echo those sentiments and hope that we didn't drive you to an early retrement. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It's the gray hair. I knew him when he had regular colored hair. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just the newest commissioner up there, that's all. I kind of drove him crary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's all yours, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Chefl Passidomo law firm. I represent the commercial development arm of GL Homes. As indicated previously, two applications before you, to approve a 100,000-square-foot upscale shopping center at the southeast comer of the intersection of Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road. You may recall that one of these applications, the one for the Growth Management Plan amendment, was heard by the Planning Commission in early April and was unanimously approved by this body and the Board of County Commissioners. And after review by the State, it's back here for final adoption. I want to introduce a few members of the project team that are here with me to help answer questions: Kevin Ratterree, vice president of GL Homes; Michael Friedman, who's the president of GL's commercial division; and from Stantec I have Tim Hancock and JeffPerry. GL has developed several communities along Logan Boulevard about a mile north of this shopping center, and one of the things that they heard from the people who bought in their communities is that they want to have a shopping center that's closer to where they live, especially one that has a grocery store and restaurants. A lease has been sigred with a grocery chain that is new to the Naples market. I understand it's not much of a secrel but I can't say the name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you can't say Sprouts Market? Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And I am under oath, so I won't deny it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I think their website's saying it. MR. ANDERSON: That's what I heard. kr addition to the required neighborhood meeting, neighborhood information meeting, GL also held a number of informal meetings with residents of Saturnia Lakes, Old Cypress, Riverstone, and Longshore Lakes to share their plans and solicit feedback. The shopping center has received support letters and emails from area residents which were included in the packet for the transmittal hearing, but I don't believe they are in the packet for the adoption hearing. I do have a letter of support from the Saturnia Lakes Homeowners Association, and I'd like to read this into the Page 4l of69 November 16,20ll record. It's addressed to Mr. Ratterree. And it says, on behalf of the residents of Saturnia Lakes community, we would like to extend our sincere thanks for your efforts to keep them well informed of your future plans. You and your team made an excellent presentation and took the time to answer any and all questions. We are excited about the prospect of an upscale commercial properly in close proximity to our community. We are pleased that GL Homes will be the developer, knowing firsthand your reputation for quality and reliability. Please keep us updated on your progress and let us know ifwe can be ofassistance. I will now turn this over to Mr. Hancock to review some of the specifics of the development plan with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, there were multiple pages to the packet you just gave Terri. Is there something there that we haven't seen yet that you're going to put on the screen? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. All of the exhibits -- I'm sorry. For the record, Tim Hancock with Stantec. All of the exhibits that are being provided are also in the packet given to you as well. Some of them may have highlights or additional notes just to make it easy to review today, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: There were some language changes to the CPUD side that have been discussed, very minor, but those are in the packet. You have not seen those, but they are very few and very minor in nature, so hopefully we'll be able to go through those fairly quickly. Thank you, Bruce. You know, greatly appreciate, as many have mentioned, the opportunity to work with Bruce over the years, and I'm sure this would be nice to send him out on a high note today. The project before you has got some elements in it that I think are worthy of note, and the first one is the graphic you see before you is what we shared with the community at the neighborhood information meeting with the intent of showing the quality and intended architectural style. It's not a verbatim item, but it shows and reflects the character of what is being proposed. And this project is currently in for Site Development Plan approval as we speak as well. So I guess you could say the rubber had to meet road for us, because if there were inconsistencies there, we would be having to address those today. One inconsistency is it is not Naples Village Shops. This was done many, many moons ago. The project currently -- the name is Logan Landings, and we expect that name to make it through the process, unlike these previous six that we tried. So hopefully that will happen. But there are several elements of this project that really go to a design base and a quality project. And I joked with Mr. Ratterree earlier and Mr. Friedman that there are elements in this project that over the 25-plus years I've been doing this I tried to put into commercial projects only to have the client take them out because it cost them square footage. And so I think as we go through this, what you're going to see is a great attention to detail. From a site design standpoint, it's a pleasure to work with a project such as this. Well, how do you accomplish, you know, the type of quality we're looking for in a Growth Management Plan amendment or arezone,and the answer, quite frankly, lies in the language before you today. In looking at the Growth Management Plan amendmen! one key is limiting the overall size of the center to 100,000 square feet or less. Again, that is ayery low per-foot rate or foot per acre for most retail centers. Most retail centers in this location would be looking at something like 150,000 square feet. So they intentionally kept the square footage down to focus on being more of a neighborhood center. Secondly, in the Growth Management Plan language as well, is limiting the largest store to less than 45,000 square feet. The main reason for that, as you may recall at the transmittal hearing was, when you start getting over that, you start to get into stores that could be more regional in nature. Not just the big boxes that we think of but even a 55- or 75,000-square-foot store could be more of a regional draw andrnoi" you outside of that neighborhood focus. Thirdly, the uses within the GMPA which are replicated in the PUD are about one-third of the permitted and conditional uses within the C3 zoning district. So there already has been a significant Page 42 of 69 November 16,2017 limitation on the allowable uses in the language itself. And you also may recall the extensive market assessment provided as part of our Growth Management PIan amendment which I thought was very well presented; it showed a significant demand in the primary market area for a project of this bu! equally importang it showed us where there wasn't a demand, and those uses, again, have been specifically excluded either by narne or by square footage limitation. So as we move forward into the CPUD, what we're doing today, really, is advancing those limitations. We had discussions at time of tansmittal about certain limitations that maybe weren't appropriate at a GMP level but more appropriate at azontng level, and I'd like to highlight those for you today. And, again, this is the document you have before you with highlights provided. Some of those highlights include, under permitted uses, under number three, we have added language in the PUD document that indicates that not only are auto and home supply stories -- they are permitted, but what is not permitted are those same stores with service bays, lifts, or other facilities for installing such automotive parts. Sale of home supplies must be accessory and secondary. Again, this keeps it to more of a retail -- to use a brand name -- an AutoZone type use as opposed to a Goodyear Service Center. So, again, clariffing language in the PUD to ensure compatibility. Under Item 10, dry-cleaning plants. Unfortunately, our SIC code doesn't differentiate between what you may see as a dry-cleaning drop-offvery well versus a dry-cleaning plant. So we've added language here that, say, we can't have -- you know, we cannot have industrial dry-cleaning. In other words, you can have dry-cleaning. You can't have industrial. Well, what does that mean? So we tried to go a little bit further with the help of Mr. Schmidt, and we've developed language that says limited to contemporary, environmentally friendly, or green cleaning methods and practices. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You mean! Corby Schmid! right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, yes. Not Mr. Joe Schmitt. CHAIRMAN STRAN: At first I thought, that's kind of odd. How would Joe be - okay. MR. IIANCOCK: Well, the reason he's not here today... No. Yes, Corby, no confusion there. So - but that language is intended to capture both, you know, drop-offand pickup locations where there's no on-site, but there are currently on-site cleaners. And, again, to use a brand name, the Tide brand, for example, is using very environmentally friendly, nonchemical processes, and we discussed that at the NIM with the neighbors there, that we just wanted to stay away from things that had heavy chemical use and that type of thing. So this clarification helps provide that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want us to intemrpt you with any comments we need to make as you go through or when you finish? What would you prefer? MR. HANCOCK: Your pleasure, sir. I'm fine either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the first page? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I guess the premise of my question is whether we are absolutely locked in stone with SIC code language even when the language is misleading and outdated. Axd I would be particularly concemed about not achieving absolute precision in this language, because in the prohibited uses we are saying that anything that hasn't been explicitly permitted is prohibited. And to that end, I guess my first concem is in No. 8, dance studios. It says, dance halls except for dance halls. And, you know, it's clumsy, but probably not of serious concern to you, although -- let's see -- where it is? The one having to do with -- maybe it's number -- no, No. 27. I guess that's the next page. Should I hold offon that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's wait till we get there and make sure we fmish the first page. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any on the first page? (No response.) Page 43 of69 November 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Tim, I had suggested you add some language to the fourth line. I don't see it here. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I'll be covering that as the last item of my presentation, which are any proposed additions or deletions from the PUD document. Bu! yes, under Item 10, we are going to be adding language to limit that to a maximum of 1,500 square feet. That was a suggested addition by M.. Strain to address the issue of making sure we don't get those big plant-type operations, and we're certainly happy to do that, and you'll be seeing that language a little bit later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to my question, though, the fourth line of this page, you don't want to talk about it now; you want to talk about it after we pass this page? Can you explain why. MR. HANCOCK: Well, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I asked you to add three words. You tell me, you're not going to do that or you're going to do that? MR. IIANCOCK: We're going to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you. The words were, on the third line at the end, it says, a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable area for commercial uses derived from, and I said -- I suggested commercial uses limited to and derived from, and there was purpose for that because of the abundance of TtlLs and other analyses that go through that change things unexplained necessarily to the public, so... MR. HANCOCK: What I'm seeing here is a need to change the order of my documents so we can address both of these at the same time. So bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I'm fine. I just put it on record, and we're good. Oh, so you wanted to go over Page I twice. Okay, I didn't realize you were suggesting that. Gotcha. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He's being thorough. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Or you could have put them all on one page with different colors if you need be, but okay. MR. HANCOCK: I guess when you asked if I would rather take comments during or after, I guess I'd like to change my answer to after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will hold offtill we finish, okay, Ned. When he finishes, we'll ask all ofour questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Getting to my less accommodating way of presenting, getting back to the things that we added to the CPUD to add further clarification beyond the GMP language, also in the PUD, on the issue of personal services, miscellaneous, we had extensive discussion on the transmittal about the issue of massage parlors and what that term by itself tends to carry with it, but we didn't want to preclude -- and, again, I'm going to use brand names for the purpose ofjust being able to see them -- a MassageluXe or a Massage Envy. There's more of a day spa. So the language we worked with staffon and came up with, and, again, that would be Mr. Corby Schmidq were to add the clarification that other establishments which could not be construed as a sexually oriented business as defined in the Collier County ordinance and is part of an establishment such as a day spa providing other legitimate personal services or fitress facilities. Again, and, Mr. Fryer, this is where we get to your concem of the imperfection of using SIC codes, and we do the best we can to narrow down when necessary. So that was the attempt here. And, again, the whole purpose of these fuither limitations is to increase compatibility, taking the Growth Management Plan language which was approved for transmittal and building on that to achieve what we hope to achieve with the neighbors is a higher degree of compatibility. Additional measures are contained in the document, and one of those keys among achieving compatibility through design was the distance from the actual physical structures within the shopping to the nearest residential units within Satumia Lakes. Again, going back to an exhibit that was used at time of transmittal, within the PUD in the development standards, we require minimum separation or rear yard setback from the structures within the Page 44 of 69 November 16-2017 shopping center to the property line adjacent to Satumia Lakes of 300 feet. Now, that's within the site. So you've got lake, you've got preserve, and then when you get to the actual Saturnia Lakes development, which is south and east of us, you've got additional preserve, which is recorded on their property. And so what you can see here is there is well over 500 feet of separation between the rear of the shopping center and the nearest residential unit in Satumia Lakes. Additional project benefits that have been included in the PUD are we are granting a 15-foot utility easement at the request of the Collier County Public Utilities along Logan Boulevard. That is for future utility lines if needed, and that is being done at no cost to Collier County. Using the site plan that just has a little bit of color added to it to highlight this point the project is also providing landscape, hardscape, and interior landscaping elements that are well in excess of the minimum code requirements. Under Item 4 on Page 10 of the CPUD document you will see on Items A through D a total allocation of more than 30,000 square feet of foundation plantings, specialty paving, parking lot landscaping, and additional green space, and these are all being provided in excess of the code requirements. We also have, through the Site Development Plan process, showed trees that are in excess of code between the lake and the vehicular use area (indicating) providing additional landscape and buffering where one is not required by code. Additionally, we have even included lighting requirements. And they really are to typifo what you kind of see here, which is specialty lighting to be provided in these open courtyard and gathering spaces to, again, accentuate the quality of the project. We've proposed as well an attractive and unified architectural theme which will be present throughout the buildings and grounds to create the atfactive and welcoming statement that was presented to the neighbors. The goal of this project is not just to create a place to come do some shopping but to create a space that encourages a more leisurely activation of the public spaces, providing for spaces to interact with others. Even the deviations sought on Page 9 of the document are focused on quality design elements. Deviation No. I on Page 9 is to allow for a project identification sigrr at the corner. And I think it's important to note this is a project ID sign. It's not allowed to have any tenant information on it whatsoever. A detail of that sign has been included as a final exhibit in your PUD document. Again, the purpose here is to orient the center focally toward the corner and toward the intersection and to prevent (sic) a welcoming statement and something that is architecturally pleasing, and I think it does a fine job of doing that. Deviation No. 2 - and I offer this exhibit with the green tiangles because sometimes the master concept plans have a lot on them, and it's kind of difficult to differentiate between one marker and the next. But Deviation No. 2 is really to allow outparcel signage, just like any outparcel would be allowed to have; however, because the project may not be divided, the lots may not be sold, they may be retained in ownership by GL, we wouldn't have an ability to have signage. So this is simply to allow for signage for each of those four outparcel buildings consistent with the code as if they were outparcels. But when -- again, when you don't plat, you don't have that opporfunity. And the last one - and this was the deviation that I felt probably needed the most graphic representation. The last one is to include a significant water feature that we've gotten very positive feedback from the community on the corner with ideal signage, to then tum around and put a shade tree every 30 feet, within five to seven years of growh, would actually block the feature entirely. So what we have requested under Deviation No. 3 is the ability to cluster the trees at specific intervals to allow for openings and views of the water feature and the project itself but offering no reduction in the required number of trees. It's just simply a clustering application with 60-foot view windows leading into the site. And now, Commissioner Strain, Im going to get to the part of the additions or deletions or changes to the document that we are proposing. And they are minor and very few in nature, so I'll go through them. On Page 1, the first highlight you see at the top of the sheet is to add the language after commercial uses that reads, limited to and derived from the permitted and conditional uses of the C3 zoning district. This Page 45 of69 November 76,2017 was a clarification that was suggested to us, we felt was appropriate, so we've added that language and are proposing to make that change. Under Item 10, dry-cleaning plants, we've offered a fuither clarification to limit the maximum size to 1,500 square feet and as we discussed, that's trying to avoid the idea of a dry-cleaning plant, and a size limitation is a reasonable manner and to which -- to make sure that that does not happen. The next change, again, is a further clarification. We talked about the 300-foot building setback on the standards table, and what we're suggesting is to add in parentheses that setback is measured from the property line to principal and accessory uses. The reason for that clarification is there are sometimes things that are deemed to be structures that are not actual principal or accessory uses. One example might be, you know, some type of water management structure that exceed 30 inches in height. We just didn't want to get caught in the unknown. So what we're saying is any principal or accessory structure has to be at least 300 feet from the property line adjoining Saturnia Lakes. The next item that is a clarification is our Development Standards Table rolled onto a second page. And as you got to that second page, without a header it was a little difficult to see what that actually applied to. And so I looked at that. If you look at the Development Standards Table, what it talks about -- that you see here is actually applied to a section of minimum setbacks from internal propefty lines. ln other words, should the property at some point in the future be subdivided, we wanted to make sure that our setbacks didn't apply just to the perimeter, but also to any internal property lines created as well. So this will probably get made a little clearer if we can combine that table up onto the previous page. But one thing I didn't notice is the statement of having a principal setback under tha! well, it was already addressed in the lines above it, so that just needs to be deleted. But the other two are just to state that an accessory setback within a lot created inside the development has a setback of 10 feet, and any preserve setback would be 25 feet. Under Note No. l, we offer, again, clarification language that states simply that no matter how the setbacks are measured -- because in some places you have a setback that is less than 20 feet, and if you are adjacent to a lake, we didn't want it to appear as if we were trying to put structures within a lake maintenance easement. So we wanted to clariff that no setbacks shall allow placement of structures within the lake maintenance easements. That is the -- let's see. Oh, Page I 1. And the last item we have that we're requesting this body consider as a part of their action on this document is under development standards, we did get a request from the folks in the estates that lie to our west that any of the monument and directory signs along Logan Boulevard be limited to a height of no more than 15 feet, and GL has agreed to that, and this is the language that would accomplish that as well. And with that, Mr. Chairman, those are the changes that we have proposed as a part of the document that is before you today, and I'll be happy to address any questions you may have, both I and members of our team as well. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I commend you on the project and also on your willingness to work with the residents nearby to achieve some compromises and some concessions for their quality of life. There's one point that I want to raise, though, that is troubling. It's not sufficiently troubling to cause me to vote one way or another, but I think a record needs to be made on this point because of how the project is referred to as upscale. And upscale sounds great, and it is great. We all think of, perhaps, Mercato, and the idea of having upscale venues of this sort, commercial venues, is appealing; however, we are kind of co -- we as the count5r and the residents nearby are kind of co-risk-takers with the developer on the success of this venture because, undoubtedly, if - and we hope this is not the case. But if the developer is unable to lease the space to a suffrcient number of upscale operations to make money in the near term, they'll be right back before us and the County Commission looking for more relaxed usages. And I just think it's worth Page 46 of 69 November 16,2017 mentioning that we're all going in this as co-risk-takers. MR. HANCOCK: I appreciate your comments. I do want to point out that in all of our presentations when we refer to the upscale nature of the center, we have tried to tie that back to physical design elements that will help achieve that objective. Unfortunately, when we start talking about specific end-users, what you and I may consider to be upscale becomes somewhat of a nebulous conversation. So we tried to look at the physical design parameters that zoning could address. And if you push those elements forward, they will drive -- they will simply drive a rent that doesn't support or substantiate, you know, a lesser end of the use spectrum. We hope that that is the case. But the one thing that gives me greater comfort - and I do appreciate your initial comments about working with the neighbors, and while I would love to take all the credit in the world for that comment, I can't. I have to give it to GL. Mr. Ratterree and Mr. Friedman have been extremely -- I don't even want to say accommodating. But they realize that this is a partnership with the neighborhoods, and they started very early and very often meeting with them. So one of the things we ran through is somebody would say, well, I want this end-user, but not this one, and that becomes problematic. So I just want to point out that I think what we're trying to do is use the zoning regulations that are available to us to force a design element that contributes to the quality. And, quite candidly, I think that's the extent to which we have the ability to do that. Your comments are noted, sir. I understand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Item27 of permissible uses says, records and prerecorded tape stores. And I scratch my head and say, what are those? And I'm just - MR. HANCOCK: Well, based on your youth, I can understand that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm concerned that you might be locking yourself into - particularly the way this is set up, because any use that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited, and you're not mentioning DVD and CDs or -- MR. IIANCOCK: I think there's one Blockbuster remaining in the U.S., if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My only question is, is are you sure you want to limit yourself to something that is really an anachronism? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Vinyl is making a comeback. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They'll probably go back to videotapes, too. Vinyl records. MR. HANCOCK: Believe it or not, there have been some -- now are upscale record stores that are reproducing vinyl, and they're doing it in collaboration with * for example, might be a coffee barlrecord store. And so I won't tell you that was the intent that I had this great vision that that's going to occur and we're going to put it there. But to be honest, we saw it as a fairly innocuous use. And if it were to occur in this place, it would be something rather unique. But, again, I think -- I think there's a better chance of getting a record store there than DVD store. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Probably so. My next concem is the prohibited uses. And the third paragraph is a puzzler to me. I don't really understand what is being said here. The first two paragraphs do specify uses that are prohibited, and then the third paragraph says any of the foregoing uses that are subject to a gross floor area limitation by Collier County Land Development Code shall be permitted by right without the maximum floor area limitation. It doesn't sound like a prohibition to me. Is it out of place? What does it mean? MR. HANCOCK: It may be out of place. Maybe there's another place that that wording makes a little more sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 33. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we do that in the standard sections of our code for straight zoning, so why don't you just put it in No. 33 and that covers it. MR. HANCOCK: I think that clarifies it. MR. STONE: Mr. Chair? Page 47 of 69 November 16-2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. STONE: Is this working? It may not be appropriate to have it as No. 33 simply because it's not a use. I mean, I know that we usually put comparable information in as numbers, but if it was a number or not, I do believe you're right, it should go above permitted uses. I just wanted to point it out that it doesn't necessarily have to be a number. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The only reason I was using it that way is that's how we do it - we have three catchalls under our straight zoning sections, and they're like that. So I thought it would be appropriate. But it doesn't matter anyway. If you just don't want a number, just put it as a blank sentence, that would cover it. MR. HANCOCK: That was going to be my suggestion. lnstead of numberingit33,why don't we move it up below 32 as aparagraph stand alone, and that way it's clariffing the above uses, if that's acceptable. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That makes more sense to me that way. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Under Exhibit F, ordinance Exhibit F, with respect to traffic, it says, the project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net new p.m. peak-hour two-way trips. And my question is, is how on Earth is that enforced? MR. HANCOCK: Well, each time that the project comes in for Site Development Plan review, whether it be in a single phase or multiple phases, each one takes the square footage and has to submit a new Traffic Impact Statement that takes the uses that are proposed and gives a correlating number of net new p.m. peak hour trips. The county, in essence, every time you amend your SDP, builds on the previous TIS so that they track the number of new trips. And if we come in on Round 3 of 3 with a 450 fnst trip or 45fth trip, that's where we get stopped and we have to reduce square footage or take measures to get the trip numbers back into the zone. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does the county have a mechanism to go back and say you need to trim back your project? MR. IIANCOCK: Well, it's a limitation just like anything else in the PUD. So we're required at SDP to comply with it. So it really -- it's just a ceiling threshold that we have to comply with. MS. ASHTON: We have some other PUDs where we've started to add the language, because it's determined at time of SDP or plat. So we can add the revised language that I recently used that will tie - that traffic language gets tied down at SDP or plat. It's not like in 10 years you're going to clock the trips and say, oh, no, we've got a code enforcement issue. That's not how staffapplies it. So we can look - Mr. Stone will provide the revised language. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. And the last question I have -- and I've raised this before in other projects - No. 5 of Exhibit F, the monitoring report, what is allowed to happen here is the managing entity, which is an entity that generally speaking we would be familiar with and have confidence in because it was the real developer in interesl but as time passes, it can then orgmize a shell corporation and a non-capitalized corporation, transfer all responsibilities of monitoring to that entity that, as I say, it could be simply a shell, and thereby excuse itself from any responsibility. Now lrealize this is language of long standing, but to me it makes the monitoring report really almost meaningless. MR. IIANCOCK: Well, the language you see before you actually is not that old, because we used to have a diflerent problem with all of our monitoring reports -- was that each individual, as you would transfer lots and ownership, you might have l0 or 12 different reporting entities within a single PUD. That was a nightmare. As someone who does PUD monitoring reports, you know, the question -- it was problematic. What the county has done is at least dialed it back to make sure there is a single entity that is responsible for the monitoring report, which I think has added more clarity and less confusion. Not to say it's perfect, but this is language we are provided, in essence. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, yeah. You didn't come up with this. I'm just -- I'm being critical of the language because I think it leaves this -- the obligations, it leaves Page 48 of69 November 16,2017 them open to being canceled simply by virtue of the successor, the assignee being incapable of carrying out the responsibilities. You can't look back at the managing entity because it's been excused. MR. HANCOCK: From a personal standpoint I have yet to see the county not threaten one of my clients with code enforcement action for failure to file a PUD monitoring report in a timely fashion. So if you do not file, if you -- someone is going to get a code enforcement action, and it's going to be the property owner of record, and then they will have to respond to that code enforcement action for failure to file. So that has been my personal experience with the path that's on should you not file in a timely fashion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, Im not saying there's anything you should have done or should be doing. This is language that's standard. It's boilerplate, but I do have a problem with it. Those are my only questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Could you either -- add under prohibited uses sexually oriented businesses or either add it to 2,25, md27? MR. HANCOCK: I believe sexually oriented businesses are disallowed by code. Oh, no, there's requirements of minimum separation. Okay. So what we're suggesting is, basically, under prohibited uses, if we take that language that was proposed that says sexually oriented uses as, you know, identified in Collier County code, that they would be a prohibited use, would that satisff your question? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, if that applies to all the permitted uses. MR. IIANCOCK: Then, yes, I think if we add that language under prohibited uses, it would stand. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anyhing else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I got afew, Tim. The first one is you cleaned up everything we talked about. Oh, on the master plan, do you have any objection under the bottom of it where the Stantec logo is, it says, master concept plan, could you just drop the word "concept" and say "master plan"? One of your peers has decided anytime it actually says "concept" you can actually change the zoning of the land around it; they're making that argument. So this is just to avoid any trouble like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cna I say what again? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What you just said. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: All of it? Can you read it back to me? No, I'm just kidding. MR. HANCOCK: What I heard is one of my professional colleagues has created a problem for me, so we're going to take the word "concept" -- CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I've had to start on this lately because it got to be a pretty argumentative situation. And, you know, even -- we had to turn to the County Attorney's Offrce, and they concur, you can't change zonrngsimply by saying it was concept and that those lines don't mean anything. They do. And I know you don't have exactly the situation here, but actually it came up about a water management lake kind of like yours. And I wart to make sure the people in Saturnia Lakes and to the south don't have to worry about that lake becoming a building. MR. HANCOCK: We will remove the word "concept" from the master plan, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The other thing, I talked to Mr. Sawyer, who just is anxious to come up and start getting into a long and heavy transportation discussion right now. So, Mike, would you mind coming up. It's kind of something that involves you and them both, so I'd like your explanation of a couple things first. And then I notice you've got JeffPerry here, and he's probably wondering what tangent we're going to get offon TISs today. MR. I{ANCOCK: As soon as you said transportation, sir, I started packing up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got more of you. I just want to get this one done with Mike since we're Page 49 of69 November 16.2017 on the master plan. Mike, I'd asked you to take a look at the issue concerning the -- well, let's start with the first scenario. The first scenario is at some point in the future Logan is going to expand. It's two-lane road now, and I believe it's going to be possibly a maximum of four lanes or whatever you guys come up with your TISs to say it's supposed to be. And I was looking at the left tum lane now for Saturnia. Saturnia can make a left on the two-lane road right now, and I imagine the shopping center would probably like to be able to do the same thing. But my impression from what I've heard from the neighbors is that there's - only one of you is going to get that opporhrnity. The first one to get it is the one that's going to exclude the other. Can you explain that scenario. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transpoftation Planning. I actually looked at both access points, the one for the shopping center itselfand then also Saturnia Lakes. I believe the distance between the proposed shopping center, which is currently being used, I believe, by the nursery, approximately the same location, and Satumia Lakes, there's about 1 7 -- 1,7 50 feet to 1,800 feet, roughly. That's plenty of room to have access points for both locations. The only possible question would be whether or not -- if Logan ever is expanded to four lanes, whether they would be able to maintain a full opening at that location. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: What location? MR. SAWYER: For the shopping center, pardon. For the shopping. The location for that currently is at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Satumia. MR. SAWYER: - Saturnia Lakes. At this point I see absolutely no reason that it wouldn't be able to be kept, the only exception might be is if there is some sort of health/safety issue that crops up in the future, and I can't anticipate that, quite honestly. What we would do, when and if Logan ever does get expanded to a four-lane segment, there will be meetings with the public before we go through with that, there will be plans that are done both at initial layout for the road, then we would go into 30, 60, 90 set plans, and there would be meetings with the public. Generally speaking, when people have full openings on a four-lane segment like that, we try and retain them if we can. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how far down the road do you see Logan potentially being expanded to four lanes? MR. SAWYER: Honestly, it is not currently on any of our long-range plans at all. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Noton the2040 LRTP? MR. SAWYER: No, it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So practically everybody in this room will be gone by then. MR. SAWYER: I know I certainly will be. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I will be, okay. MR. SAWYER: Trinity just corrected me. It is in the needs plan for 2040, but it isn't in the cost-feasible plan, so... Yes, it is showing up on the radar. We do have enough adequate right-of-way in order to do the four-lane segment. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I appreciate your research on that point. I have one other point. Right now the master plan - and the condition right now is the two-lane road, I believe. There's Iittle - on the master plan that they've got in the PUD, it shows a right turn and a left turn out of the shopping center onto Logan. And it looks like there's a median break pictured on -- or maybe just white lines on asphalt allowing that to happen. I don't know if the developer would agree to it. From a transportation perspective, I wanted to make you aware when the people -- the people I've talked to, when they come in and out of Saturnia and doing their lefts, they have a difficult time with -- you know, you can go right on red, and there's a lot of traffic volume coming offof Immokalee Road, and so they have to wait until there's enough of a break to make a left-hand turn safely even in the two-lane condition. Is there anything that would prohibit us from requesting from the developer to put a pork chop in that Logan entry so that they can't make a left on that; they can only go right? Page 50 of69 November 16-2017 Do you guys, from a traffic viewpoint, have any issues with that? I don't mind the left in. It's the left out that's causing the conflict with the Saturnia. MR. SAWYER: Right. I understand. It certainly would, to a degree, change slightly the traffic patterns that we reviewed as part of the TIS. Generally speaking, limiting left-outs from a project is a safer condition, quite honesty. So lefts-in aren't a problem. Left-outs do tend to have more of a conflict opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, Ill bringthe next questions up to the developer. MR. SAWYER: It's possible. We could certainly look at that at the time of SDP. That would be more of an operational, quite honestly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. I wanted to see what we could do. Thank you. Tim, I'll try to get back to finish my questions up. Do you have any objection, or does your client have any objection to limiting your out onto Logan as a right-out only, and maybe a left-in but a right-out? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we would object to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you wouldn't like a left-out? A left-out won't work for you guys? MR. HANCOCK: We need the left-out on Logan at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that is an - and I'm sure there are Saturnia people here. We'll have to hear their thoughts on that, but I know that's been expressed to me as the most serious concern for them. MR. IIANCOCK: And while we recognize the concem, we looked very carefully at the spacing of the two intersections, and even under the current classification, which is a seven for this roadway, there really are no standards. But even if you were to apply a much higher standard, such as a four, we would still meet that standard for a left-out. So while I recognize it may be a perceived issue from a transportation operations standpoint, we don't believe the issue exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this isn't -- well, okay. Let's go back to that long TIS discussion I had this morning with the other project. What you believe exists may not be what's happening on the ground for people who have to experience it every day, just like the two worst roads in Collier County, which are Immokalee and Pine Ridge Road. You're feeding directly offof Immokalee Road. People are going to be pouring onto this road. People coming out of Saturnia on a two-lane condition have a hard enough time maneuvering the breaks in traffic just as it is today. All I'm asking is, just today, just as the road, two-lane condition is today, do you have any problem prohibiting a left-out? I understand based on Mike's testimony you could quali!, potentially, for a light at that location due to distance in the future, which would give you the left-out. It's a temporary situation until Logan's expanded. And you're saying you can't agree to that? MR. TIANCOCK: Yes, sir. We have current leasing obligations based on a certain set of conditions that could be jeopardized if that taffic pattem were to change. And we wouldn't have entered those leasing conditions had our traffrc analysis not shown that it is not a problem. That being said, I think one of the concerns about turning left out of Satumia Lakes onto Logan at this time is more of an a.m. concem than a p.m. concern. And I'll be interested to hear about that. But when you look at left-outs out of the shopping center and the peak hour of the shopping center, those two times do not conflict. You don't have a lot of people exiting shopping centers in the a.m. peak hour. So I don't think one exacerbates the other from a peak standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the basis for your reasoning is you apparently have some agreements already in place that rely on that left turn? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Can you redact out what you don't want the public to see and send me a copy of that lease or that agreement so I can verifr that? And that will help understand the issue for you, since you put it on record. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. My client's indicaturg we can. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Let me go on to my next questions at this time. Page 51 of69 November 16,2017 When you get into your project design elements -- well, first of all, traffic. This is just a point for Mr. Sawyer that I had already made. I have never seen traffic give us a one-sentence statement for a traffic commitment in a PUD, so congratulations. I don't know how that happened, but it was shocking. Not bad, butjust surprising. Under your project design elements, A, in addition to LDC code requirements, the minimum of an additional 1,500 square feet of building foundation plantings shall be provided. So the code already requires building foundation plantings. So where is it you're putting this then? How are you making an additional? What does that mean? MR. HANCOCK: We've actually expanded the building foundation plantings areas beyond what the code requirement is. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: You made them wider? MR. IIANCOCK: Longer, typically. You just extend them. You have to have a certain percentage. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: And we have just basically taken those same beds and extended them further than we needed to meet the minimum requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. As far as B, in addition to the LDC code requirements, the minimum additional 9,500 square feet of special paving area shall be provided. Are there code requirements for special paving areas? It's either asphalt, concrete, or -- I mean, what were you thinking the code requires? MR. HANCOCK: It requires one of a series of applications based on the amount of vehicle use area you have. And in those applications, you can increase plants or beds for building perimeter landscape, you can increase your -- you know, special paving areas. What we are being asked to do - Ms. Gundlach asked, you know, you're saying you're upscale, so I need to see how -- what are you doing beyond code with regard to landscaping? So what we did is we took our landscaping plan and our SDP plan that is currently in review, and we quantified where we were in excesses of the code. Now, the code requirement by the time we get done with our interior vehicular use landscape areq by the time you get done stacking everything together, about l7 percent of that has to be in one of these treatment areas, and what we're saying is we are in excess of that to these amounts, and we've put them in the document as a commitment so that you can't -- we're notjust saying, yeah, we're doing more. There's a quantitative measure that can be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in line with the code requirements but just asking more to what the minimums are. MR. HANCOCK: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about C? In addition to the LDC code requirements, a minimum of additional 800 square feet of landscaping shall be provided within the vehicular use areas. Now, we have islands as requirements and end caps and things like that. So those are requirements. You're adding more islands is what you're saying, or how are you -- MR. HANCOCK: We're making the islands wider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. And then D, in addition to the LDC code requirements, the minimum of an additional 19,000 square feet of green space shall be provided in the vehicular use areas. What is - what are you referring to as green space? I mean, green space opens up a whole bunch of definitions. MR. HANCOCK: It does. That lake that you saw -- this is not a lake as we nornally look atthem. Most lakes in commercial developments or residential developments are a part of your stormwater system. This is actually a water feature. It is not a part of our stormwater system, and it is an amenity, and it qualifies as open space and, therefore, the lake is a lion's share of that 19,000 square feet that's being cited. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, could you say the feet of green space including the water feature amenity at the entry? That way everybody knows what to expect. I was just figuring you were going to leave some open spaces for parking laying around that aren't paved. And I know you probably didn't intend that so... MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, and we're happy to make that clarification under D. Page 52 of 69 November 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: And under F, your specialty lighting, I heard your comment aboutthat, and you're going to -- your picture showed some of it. The code requires lighting already. So the specialty lighting is in addition or a different type to meet the code requirement; is that what you're saying, or is does -- MR. HANCOCK: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: So in lieu of, say, a bollard or a wall sconce or something so people can find where we're they're going, you're going to do this specialty lighting, which is string lighting or something like that. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct and one of the benefits of working with GL commercial on this is having such a specific idea of what they want to do allows us to include this type of language. Normally, if you'd asked me to tell you the type of lights I would put in a courtyard on a commercial center, I probably would object. But in this case, we will be doing outdoor string lighting in at least one of the courtyard areas, which is above and beyond code requirements. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: And if Commissioner Nance was here, he probably would ask the following questions. What do you -- would you have any problem doing it to the dark sky requirements? MR. TIANCOCK: I think we're comfortable with the shielding requirements consistent with dark sky, but there are some elements of dark sky that are - I don't want to say just difficult to achieve, but you don't get as much bang for the buck. But I hear what you're asking for. We -- you know, I mean, we have to do the cutoffshielding on our perimeter lights to make sure there's no light spillover to adjacent properties. So are you talking about -- oh, are you talking about flat panel-type fixtures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm talking -- well, what - dark sky has qualifications for all kinds of lighting, and when we stood -- the Commission at one point had urged staffto start working towards dark sky guidelines for our code. I honestly don't know how far we've gotten with that. Muybe Ray - I don't know. It kind of dropped when Commissioner Nance left. It was his - something he was real concerned, but I'm not sure it carried through staff. MR. BELLOWS: It would have to be part of LDC amendments, and I'm not involved in that one, so I'd have to check. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, Tim, without it having gone very far in the county, there's not much I can ask you to do, because I don't know how to ask you at this point. So I had hoped - I had thought the direction was at the time the commission had accepted that as something we wanted to work towards, but it doesn't look like it happened. MR. HANCOCK: And as you know, Commissioner Strain, you and I have -- I've been before you on a number of projects where we dealt with lighting specifically because there was an adjacent residential community that had concerns, and I think because of the distance to Satumia and to the Estates, it didn't hit the radar screen for me as much on this site. That being said, you know, we do know we're going to be doing LED lighting, and I think we can agree to flat panel LED lighting which keeps you from that bulbous light spill situation that you have with the older type fixtures. And I'd be happy to add something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could at least do that, that would be helpful. And then the last thing on this part of it is, I don't see anything in here addressing outside amplified sound. And, you know, the last thing you would want and this panel would want is another Stevie Tomatoes. Not that we don't like that facility, but its location and its noise in relative to the residential. Do you have any guidelines to outside amplified sound that you would be willing to address? Because that is a concem of the - the residential neighborhoods in the area may be further away, but in those quieter areas, the sound travels a lot farther. I live in one of those areas, so I know what it's like. We generally ask entertainment or retail facilities to agree to no outside amplified sound. That is impractical sometimes when you're looking at cafes with seating on the outside, stufflike that. But the minimum that I might suggest is that if you're going to have any outside eating areas with tables and chairs, that the outside amplified sound in that area be focused to the north side or the -- more north side of the building so that it's facing one of the major roadways and not the south to where the residences are. I don't know if that is conceming to you or not, but... Page 53 of69 November \6-2017 MR. HANCOCK: It's not concerning, actually, and when we met earlier this week, if you had asked me, and I think you did, I thought we actually had language in the PUD addressing that. So we have no problem with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe it is. I didn't pick up on it. So maybe if you see it while we go on with other speakers, you can tell me. MR. HANCOCK: It has never been our intent to have outdoor live music or, you know, amplified performances. I just want to make sure we don't run -- and I'm happy to introduce that language. I don't want to run afoul of if you have an outdoor seating area and you have, you know, music that's through speakers in the ceiling or in the upper areas that's just, you know, atmospheric. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tim, what happened in this other location, it's in Pebblebrooke, which is not too far from you guys, same main road, they got a restaurant going in, and something new, kind of like so many things happening today, the entire outside wall was sliding panels, and inside and facing that wall were these giant TVs with blaring football games and people cheering and jumping up and down shouting. And when you open those walls up, and that community had to live through that and to this day they probably do because we couldn't get it corrected. It got built. I'm trying to see that that does not happen here under any condition. So that's the objective. And before the meeting's over, if you could just think about some language that would address that, that's all I'm -- and you guys don't seem to be the kind that are wanting to do that anyway. I just need to make sure it's memorialized so someone else comes along and doesn't read it differently. MR. HANCOCK: And, yes, I'm confident we can arrive at sometlring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm just about furished up with my issues. I had a question -- oh, an update -- Immokalee Road. You've got - the transporlation impact talks about the Immokalee Road conditions at LOS standard at E, but it's currently functioning at C. I think you might want to - that really is not what is the 2017 AUIR. I think it's dropped down a bit from the C. I'm not sure it's relevant necessarily since you started this program earlier. I just wanted to mention that in case the question comes up anywhere else. Oh, and then your background traffrc growth determination, which is on Page 5 of your TIS, you have some - it says 2016 trip bank, and the numbers are red. I'm just understanding - I know the higher values were supposed to be shown in red, but what's the significance of those trip bank numbers? MR. IIANCOCK: It won't surprise you that I'm pointing at JeffPerry. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I imagine he sat here all day waiting for something. MR. PERRY: My two-cents worth in, yes. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Perry. I'm a transportation planner with Stantec. When we do an analysis and we forecast for the buildout year, we have to look at the trip bank which, as you heard earlier today, was the committed trips that are on the books that have not yet been built, and compare that to an annual growth rate that is also included in the AUI& and we're required to use the higher of the two. So we look at the frip bank for this particular section. Itwas 474, for instance, on the one roadway. If we applied the growth rate, it was 200 and something. So we're required, in our forecast of background traffic, to use the higher of the two numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But what does that mean in reality? Does that mean that because it's in red, is that a deficiency? MR. PERRY: No, no. It's just pointing out that that is the number that we're using as you move down the table into other tables. Those are the numbers that we've used in our analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I needed to know on that. Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate it. Anybody else have any questions? Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. I think your concern was great when you were asking about the outside noise. Just for my own personal edification, so as I look at this Page 54 of69 November 16,2011 project are there only two real outdoor areas, the two we see pictured here that are around that northem corner where the intersection of Immokalee Road is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. On their master plar they show four or five outparcels. I would imagine it's just Buildings l, 2, 3, and 4, and there's Retail A and Retail B, but in between are smaller units. Any of them could basically be retail to a point where you've got someplace to ea! and -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: An outdoor area like we see pictured here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Till there's some threshold for shopping centers that they can't pass but offtrand I don't know what that is without looking at the code. They could have multiple buildings, and I just want to make sure they're not all noisy places that are not thought of well for the neighborhood. Is that what you were -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Tim, if you had anything you want to add to it, go right ahead. MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Once you said fansportation, I checked out. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tim? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Patrick was asking where, potentially, could there be outside seating for - COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Because as I see it right now, my personal take is that those two -- that picture, by the way, is beautiful. I mean, I've lived in that corner all my life here in Naples. So it's going to look a lot better than it does right now and it has. Those two outdoor venues that you have pictured here on that northern corner around that unbelievable, amazing water feature, all I've got out there is road noise, so I can't see that bothering anybody. I understand the Chairman's concerns, and I'm glad you're trying to clarifu that. My question is, are there any other buildings that would allow -- I'm not talking about two tables outside the front door along the walkway out front as you see in some of these strip malls. Are there any other buildings that would have the potential to be open like that with an expansive outdoor area? MR. TIANCOCK: There is a planned courtyard kind of in the corner, if you will, and that could have tables and chairs. And I think we're all trying to get to the same place. And it's not our intent to direct sound to any residential area. So would something as straightforward as no outside amplified sound shall be attractedto the east or south property line? CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's a start. We'll see -- the public's here. If they want to speak and have any concems, we'll try to address them. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Because we firmly believe that a - you know, you're righg most of the what I will call the entertainment portion of this project is really up on that corner. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Which is fine. MR. HANCOCK: And you're close to two six-lane roadways. But if you're on the other side of Logan, you don't want to hear it; doesn't matter where you are. So we would want to ensure that the noise spill doesn't get to the adjacent residential properlies. Fortunately it's across two roadways in that area" so it becomes less of an issue for us. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And I'm seeing heavy landscaping there, which is part of your plans. Let's just take an example, this little courtyard area here. I see heavy, heavy landscaping back between. So, hypothetically, back behind that in the distang distant would be potentially one little piece of Saturnia Lakes, which is the only residential area in question that could be close to that sound? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. From this point to the nearest home in Saturnia Lakes is over 600 feet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Wow. Okay. MR. HANCOCK: You know, so we're comfortable with no outside amplified, you know, music that is directed, you know, to the south or east property line. And we hope that will accomplish it, because if you imagine a television playing from one end of a football field to the other, which is only 300 feet, and we're twice, you know, if you don't amplifu that, if it's just a television, that should be more than sufficient distance to address the issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, sir. Page 55 of69 November 16,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that may be at least a modest step backward from the commitment that I believe was made at the NIM. I'm looking at Page 15 of the staffreport, the bullet points of the various commitments that were made. And the second-to-last one says, bars and land uses that generate loud music will be restricted. So it wasn't limited to certain quadrants of the property. MR. HANCOCK: We did restrict them by eliminating bars. You can't have a bar. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bars and land uses. So land uses involving entertainment that don't necessarily involve serving of alcohol. MR. HANCOCK: Well, I think the thought of restriction is to deal with the issue of sound, and that's why I'm really surprised. I actually thought we had it in the PUD at some point but we can craft that language as a further limitation. yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think maybe we said this already, but I would see that in a prohibited use. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's where we put them on other ones. But whatever language you come up with, before the meeting's over, we need to digest it and get it added there. MR. HANCOCK: At this point I'd like to propose for your consideration that we add that no outside amplified sound shall be directed to the east or south property line. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, that's more restrictive than what was conceded, I guess, at the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. I mean, bar and land uses that generate loud music will be restricted, and they've not included bars in here, or I can't see any other land use in there that would be problematic except for the possibility of spillover from a restaurant because of outside music and entertainment. You're limiting that fuither, so it's getting there. MR. HANCOCK: And one of the things to also considerthe actual design of the center itselt in essence, operates somewhat like a funnel channeling the sound back towards the comer or the intersection, unlike the example you cite where you have the end cap of a restaurant where they opened up a wall that's right across the street not just 150 feet from homes. So I do think the design takes that into consideration as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the project across the street from you is Old Cypress, right? So the more sound you direct to Diane's neighborhood, the better. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it can't be any worse than the high school. MR. HANCOCK: Ms. Ebert gets to request two songs a night. CHAIRMAN STRAN: She'll do that. Be careful. Okay. Anybody else at this time? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Tim, the water feature, you said it's not part of the drainage network? MR. HANCOCK: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's not connected to any root drain or culvert or anything? Is it lined? How does it fill up? MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Bill, do you want to - Bill Fenno (phonetic) with GL is handling the engineering for the project. I'll let him get me out of that one. MR. FENNO: Bill Fenno with GL Homes. Yes, we do have a drainage inlet that outfalls into that lake to maintain elevation. It is lined. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it will be part of your calculation? MR. FENNO: It is a part of the calculation. It is not used for water quality. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Got it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, before we get much further, I'd like to discuss a couple of issues with the language, minor things, if it that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. What language? MR. STONE: Well, going back to the traffic commitment, we were discussing tying that to the time of SDP. I came up with the language with the help of Ms. Ashton. Page 56 of69 November 16,20ll CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. STONE: I can read that into the record for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. STONE: So the commitment right now says the project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net new p.m. peak hour two-way trips, and I propose to add the following language: As based on the use codes in the ITE manual, which is lnstitute of Transportation Engineers, trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP approval or subdivision plat approval. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Does that work foryou guys? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE: And a couple of minor cleanup issues that I noticed as I was going through this again. In Deviation 3, it states that the current requirements, we require trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet on center. In the landscape buffer abutting the right-of-way or primary access road internal to a development to exceed the minimum spacing, I think that should be "maximum" spacing. I don't think there's any harm leaving it the way it is, but I feel it's more accurate to state maximum. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Because we state it's no more than 30 feet, that becomes a maximum spacing. So I understand where you're coming from. It would be consistent that they can be no more than 30 feet apart. So we're going to exceed that maximum spacing criteria by allowing windows up to 60 feet and clustering. Are we on the same page? MR. STONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That clears it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. STONE: And one more thing. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to bring this up, but under prohibited uses - and I believe Corby will be presenting some proposed changes to the GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they're in the packet. We've already read them. And ifwe had any questions on it, we'd be asking. But we'll certainly ask for a staffreport if he wants to enhance it any. MR. STONE: Okay. In the GMP amendment under prohibited uses, it states any use which is not identified above, and in the LDC -- in the PUD it limits it to any use or structure in the C3 district. I think we should just mimic what's in the GMP amendment and say any use which is not identified above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's actually simpler, yeah. Why don't we -- MR. BELLOWS: I think that would make it more consistent with the GMP language and avoid confusion in the future. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: So any use not -- yeah, any conditional use or accessory use not identified above is what it says. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. That language change is fine as well. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anything else, Scott? MR. STONE: No. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Diane, did you have some? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thankyou. And we'll go to the first staffreport. f,et's do Nancy, and then we'll ask Corby if he wants to add anything to his staffreport. MS. GTINDLACH: Okay. I was going to recommend that Corby speak first. It's fpically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't have any questions from his document, so I didn't -- that's fine. MS. GLINDLACH: Okay. Well, he had something he wanted to share with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He sat here all day for that. Could they bring it up a little bit. Page 57 of69 November 16- 2011 MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN : Aftemoon. MR. SCHMIDT: There are changes that are late forthcoming that did not make it into your packets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Corby, is it possible for you to sharpen this for my old eyes? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bring it closer. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll wait for a moment till that's ready. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Super. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Much better. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. These are insubstantive changes, but they came after packets were prepared, and because they are minor in nature, we're introducing them now. Again, these are changes being made to the recommendation you see in your staffreport, and that item where you see it highlighted there in B.12 is simply an addition of the subdistrict name to the list of locations where commercial uses are allowed, and the second item, it begins on the same page, or at least here in the exhibit it does. In the original version of the Exhibit A, the uses were bullet pointed. And in the formatting of the FLUE, generally we don't use bullet points. And although there's no words being changed here at all, we're using small letters to list those uses. These changes still coincide with what the PUD changes you've discussed earlier in the meeting are. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of GMP? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Forthe record,l'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the ZontngDepartment. And staffis recommending approval today, and we are in agreement with all the proposed CCPC changes. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, the longer you're here, the better you get at these presentations. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of staffon the PUD section of it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll move to the public speakers. And we'll start out speakers registered requested -- you know, have registered to speak. And, Ray, if you'll announce the first speaker. Please come up to the mike, identify yourself, and we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. BELLOWS: Joe Brockman. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Speakers are limited to five minutes. We're pretty flexible with that, but I ask that youjust be concise and not redundant. MR. BROCKMAN: Yes. My name is Joe Brockman. I am a resident of Saturnia l-akes,2323 Butterfly Palm. Im also a director with the homeowners association. And I had a list of items, several of those -- well, the list of items that have been relayed through Mr. Anderson and some that had been relayed to you. A few of them I will slightly skip because some of that has been addressed. But I will say the list that I did have or I'm working from, it had been presented to all the other board members, and it was presented Tuesday night at our regular monthly board of directors meetings where we have -- it's an open meeting. We had about 100 or so residents there. So, basically, what I'm talking about comes from that list. There might be a few other comments, more of maybe just being a concemed resident. And the one item -- I do know that you do have a letter from the homeowner owners association, and that was probably dated, what, 2015,'16? MR. RATTERREE: Sixteen. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You can't have discourse across with the people in the audience. Page 58 of69 November 16,2017 MR. BROCKMAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It doesn't get on record that way, and it becomes problematic. MR. BROCKMAN: I'm sorry,. I just want to be clear on that. I'm not up here to oppose the project. I'm up here to - hopefully to try to improve the project. And the letter that they do havg - I know they have a letter signed by the homeowners association. But no one that signed it is on the board of directors anymore. The president doesnt even live there anymore. I'd like to ask you to think a little bigger picture. We've got a 50-acre wooded area on that comer of Logan and Immokalee. So whatever happens here, it's going to affect a parcel immediately to the south and immediately to the west. Now, I don't know what's going to happen to those parcels. They're going to get developed just like the Cleary that we talked about earlier, but what you do here, it might preclude - maybe there could be townhomes that go in there, maybe apartments, but whatever we do here is certainly going to impact what goes in there. And, really, it comes down to two concerns: Noise, which some of that has been addressed; and the other is congestion, primarily traffic congestion. What we were asking for, consideration for on l,ogan heading north into the development, a right-in and a right-out. My only belief -- and part of it is we have a hard enough time getting out of our Logan exit from Saturnia as it is. And with 100,000 square foot of development there, there is going to be quite a bit more traffic, there's no doubt about it. And tuming left heading south out of there, they're going to have a hard time. You're going to be dealing with cars making right turn on red off of Immokalee. So it will be a difficult thing to do. I believe it will be in the best interest to all if it was right-in, right-out. And as far as the -- a couple of quick things here. One is -- I'm not the expert in this are4 but I really didn't understand, you know, this no, excuse me, oflsite preserve. And I understand here where you have one acre ofpreserve and then another acre off-site preserve. And for me, I -- just as an unsolicited comment, I really don't -- it just seems to me a way to get around whatever you're prescribing as a preserve by having oFsite preserves. We were also in favor of no -- as was talked before, like, no outside video, you know, no outside amplified music, just because it opens the door to a lot of other -- a lot of other noise problems. The other thing, there's no -- there's no restiction at all of hours of operation. So it's pretty much 2417 . A semi can come in at any time of the day, and I think that's something that should be addressed with, you know, some kind of -- some kind of restriction. That whole area still - it does have - outside of this developmeng it basically is a residential are4 and there is opportunity for those other lots to be developed in that same -- along the same line of residential or multifamily, and so I would ask that that be considered in whatever you decide on this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question or comment. Mr. Brockman, is it? MR. BROCKMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, there's no better evidence in my judgment than empirical evidence of what we actually see on these roads as far as congestion is concerned but one of the things that we have in front of us came yesterday; the Board of County Commissioners approved the20ll AIIIR. And I see that this stretch of Logan is actually five to 10 percent decrease from 2016. Has that not been your experience in traffic? MR. BROCKMAN: Well, I haven't been counting cars. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It doesn't feel like it's any better to you? MR. BROCKMAN: No. We have -- and maybe not all the time. But we do have traffic now that gets backed up through the gate fying to get out. But there also, within the communit5r, we're -- it's not a plan. It just has been considered to actually expand this Logan gate because of difficulties getting out and in offof lmmokalee. And some of iq with some of your older citizens, even the younger citizens, it's difficult Page 59 of69 November 16,2017 with the amount of traffic that we have. But I haven't noticed any particular decrease, but I can tell you again, I have no doubt the traffrc -- the amount of tramc on Logan will be much heavier - if they're going to have a successful development, there are going to be a lot more cars. I mean, I have no idea -- how many parking spots do we have there? Do you have any idea? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, no,I don't. Thankyou foryour answer. MR. BROCKMAN: Thank you. Anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAN: No, not yet. Im going to be talking to the applicant before it's over. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Danielle Otto. Oh, I see she has a note. She had to leave, but she is in fully (sic) support of both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the rezone. Gordon Wolfe. MR. WOLFE: Thank you for letting me speak today. I'm a resident at Riverstone, and lve been a resident for two years now, and I just am supportive of having a nice convenient shopping center where we could access some groceries or whatnot relatively closer than currently is located towards us or for us. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you had a shopping center here, would you be using that shopping center instead of driving fuither west on Immokalee Road looking for another shopping center? MR. WOLFE: Yes, sir. We have probably - I've got an equidistance between Publix on 951 and at the Strand. And, you know, just to go out and pick up something quickly, it takes, you know -- we're 12 minutes just to get to the light on Logan and Immokalee. So it would be much more convenient to be 12 minutes as opposed to, you know, probably 30 minutes round trip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Wolfe? MR. WOLFE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: One quick question foryou. MR. WOLFE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So I'm hearing you correctly. So you think -- and I think I agree, but I want to make sure and clarify. Having this shopping center there would actually probably alleviate a lot of traffic that I see at Immokalee right now, that intersection before I-75 where the Super Target is down by the Strand. That's a heary -- I drive that a lot. That's a heary site. MR. WOLFE: Yeah. We have terrible traffrc, especially in the morning, making a right out of a -- a right off of Logan onto lmmokalee. Terrible toaffic getting onto I-75. And I'm imagining some of that traffic probably has to do with people trying to get stuffor whatnot. So I think some of that traffrc would be going the other way, to be honest with you. Ladies who are picking up groceries or whatnot would be making that left and going into that shopping center and alleviating that backup on Immokalee. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Cool. Thank you, sir. MR. WOLFE: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Chris Lecca. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It doesn't look like he's here, or she. MR. BELLOWS: Danielle Sneed. MS. SNEED: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Danielle Sneed. I work, I live,5675 Golden Oaks Lane. I've lived there about two years. And I first want to express my appreciation for the detailed investigation you give to all of the things that come across your board. It is commendable. I am looking forward to this shopping center. I live really close to the Super Target and some of the other fast casual dining areas. I'm looking forward to having something that has more of a sitdown venue where you can be served food or have some boutique shopping. Page 60 of69 November 16,2017 If we are looking for that right now, we have to go clear west onto 41. And as we have all talked about today, the traffic there is ridiculous. So this would alleviate me having to travel in that direction and come out in an opposite direction and be very close to home. I'm at the east side or east end of Oaks, Golden Oaks. I'm about 400 feet from Logan. I do see the traffic. It doesn't bother me. And I think this will help to - like expressed, to alleviate the traffic that's happening on Immokalee that's going to the Super Walmart or going to the Target because those -- or to the Publix. Those are our options right now. So we can be able to go, you know, eastbound and have a boutique grocery store to get something besides those big box stores. So I'm in support of the pro.;ect. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ironically, though, for you to get to this store, you've got to go all the way west, then north, and all the way back east again along Immokalee, don't you? MS. SNEED: That's true. Unless we want to grab our bicycles. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah, I thought so. All of us in the Estates are stuck with those kind of parameters. I was just thinking, if you're in Golden Oaks, you've definitely got a little bit more of a travel, so -- butthankyou foryour input. I appreciate it. MR. BELLOWS: Dianne Bone. MS. BONE: Good afternoon. My name is Dianne Bone. I live at 4160 Crescent Court in Naples, and I'm here to speak in favor of the Landings at Logan. So I live in Stone Creek, which is a community located on the north end of Logan Boulevard. And I would be thrilled to see this development go through for some of the various reasons that Danielle just spoke of. It would be very convenient. Right now we have Publix either at both ends. You either go to 75, or we go far, you know, to the east. So I have been at a Sprouts before, and I do like to shop there. I do find this - the overall development the design quality, I find it to be really attractive. I think it's going to fit well on the corner and be very appealing. I think that - you know, in speaking with a lot of my neighbors about this, they, too, are preffy excited to see the Landings at the Logan -- the Landings at Logan become a reality. You know, it's just the added convenience of things. Like Gordon spoke earlier of how far it is to go, or Danielle. It's really just the added convenience. It's nice to go out to dinner with your family and your friends, you know, at new restaurants or, you know, enjoy an afternoon of shopping. And, you know, I think overall it may increase our home values as well. I mean, because, you know, the saying is location, location, location. So for that reason, I think I'd really like to see it move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. BONE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Darren Sherwood? MR. SI{ERWOOD: Good afternoon. I'm Darren Sherwood. I live in Satumia Lakes,2016 Painted Palm Drive. Some of the folks have touched on what I wanted to. I'm less concemed about the traffic it will bring to the area than the traffic that will no longer be on the roads, mostly my car. If I have, you know, an eight-tenths of a mile to groceries, restaurants, entertainmen! my car's no longer on the road. I'm 30 minutes round trip to Mercato, 20 minutes round trip to any gocery store, almost an hour to downtown. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say I am many, many hours less in my car on a monthly basis with this community here. That holds true of all 570 residents at Saturnia Lakes. And even if I'm particularly \ary one day and want to get in my car to drive to this new community, it's still 30 minutes I'm not on the road going to and from Mercato or someplace else. In addition, it will be a nice change, you know, for having something really close. With all due respect to Zookies, you know, having something a little nicer, you know, that I can go to. In addition to that you know, I come from a place where you wait 90 minutes to cross a bridge. So the fact that it might be a little bit more difficult to make a left turn onto Logan, I think, in perspective, with what we're gaining, I'm not all too concerned. Lastly, it's all about you know, who's building the community, okay. I am in real estate. I have Page 61 of69 November 16.2017 bought - I live in a GL home, and I've sold new and resale GL homes, enumerable, many, many of them. And most other developers I deal with, the instant they're able to get out of an obligation, they're out of an obligation. Sorryr, not our problem. This is a personal experience with GL Homes on many, many occasions, honoring warranties that have long since expired when I'm reselling a home for someone, hey, let's give them a call, see what they have to say, many, many months maybe, even more than a year sometimes, they're still honoring warranties on expensive items, okay. These are the people who are going to build and manage the community by my house. I feel pretff comfoltable. I've been in my house for 12 years. Forgetting the build quality, and it came through the storm and all that stuff I needed a piece of baseboard. So I called somebody at GL Homes noticing that they still use the same baseboard. Where can I get it? Who's your sub? Let me buy a couple of pieces of baseboard. The next day it's delivered to my house. No charge, Mr. Sherwood; 12 years after I bought the house as a resale. So, you know, you can't know everything up front, but knowing what I know now, I'm very comfortable with everything that's being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A question. MR. SIIERWOOD: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That tumout onto Logan, what percentage of the people turn left and what percentage tum right? MR. SI{ERWOOD: Virrually none turn right. Not virtually none. The vast majority tum left, because you're going into the westem part of town. And unless you have something specifically you need to get to Immokalee, you're avoiding Immokalee like you avoid prison and Pine Ridge Road. Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, I asked because I would think you'd make a right and then you'd go to the light and you could tum left. I see your point. MR. SHERWOOD: Again, when I go to the post office, I go left, go to Vanderbilt, go down to Goodlette, and then go to the post office, and I promise you I'm there five minutes earlier than the person who took the shorter route to lmmokalee Road. So while some are doing that it's mostly -- because they specifically have the purpose of needing to be on Immokalee Road. Everybody else, you know -- and there are certain times of day it's a little bit of a bear, but I tell you what I'll take an extra two or three rights and lefts to have a restaurant that I can walk to. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MR. SHERWOOD: Sure. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Stan? Mr. Chairman, clarification. So I think -- I'm sure you know, but I think Saturnia has a main entrance, like this project will have, that will turn right on Immokalee. So if you're going to go out the side entrance of Satumia on Logan, most likely you're going to want to go left; otherwise, you go out the main entrance, go righg and I think -- I'm guessing the same thing's going to hold true for the new project which is why it's important for them, it sounds like, because I can go out right onto Immokalee, but if I'm going to go out the other side of the project, if I'm going to go to Logan, I think the need would be to go left for both project and the community. I'm just, you know, speculating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Jay Campbell. MR. CAMPBELL: Good aftemoon. Thank you for the time. My name is Jay Campbell. I'm a homeowner in Oaks Estates. I've been there over 13 years. Seen a lot changes in the area. But one thing that was always consistent for me is that to come out of my community and always head to the west, out of my community and head to the west. Originally it was Fifth Avenue, then it became Mercato, which was a little easier. And while there's developments that are happening on the commercial level to the east of me, I don't -- I haven't seen anything of this level of quality and, you know, the amount of time that they've put into it, but more so than anything else, it's complementing, I feel, what's existing today, and what I mean by that is, yeah, I can go to three different Publixes, but I don't have something like a Sprouts or a Wholefoods or something like that that's Page 62 of 69 November 16,20ll close by to me. The restaurants that might be in there, other services that are in there, I just don't have easily accessible today. Again, I'm always going out and going, going out and going. Having something close by to my neighborhood, Oaks Estates, would be a benefit to me. I think it's, again, complementary but also, aesthetically, it's going to be appealing. Someone mentioned earlier about our property values. I mean, you see the renderings. Something like that is certainly not going to be a detriment to what my neighborhood is. And if not pedestrian, certainly something tlrat myself adults, or even kids could ride bikes to, that's appealing. So I just wanted to provide my support for the project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speakeq John Nicola. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's left. MR. BELLOWS: He's left, but he did leave a note that he's in support of the project and the reduced signheightto 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any members of the public here who have not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim or Bruce, whoever, you have an opportunity for summary or rebuttal, whatever you'd prefer. Oh, before we go into tha! I do want to ask you -- well, first of all, Terri, we'll probably take a break for you right now, and then we can finish, because we've got a couple old business items to finish up. So let's take a break for 10 minutes, come back at2:31, and we'll wrap up real quick after that. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please take your seats. We're back from the break. And we left offwith the final public speaker and going to the applicant for any summary or rebuttal that they may want to use. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Commission, I will save you from any summary or \r'rap-up and just say, we hear and understand the concerns about traffic. And when you looked at our TIS, the number of actual left-tum movements onto l,ogan is very, very low. And so while we recognize the concern, I think the other testimony that you heard that is probably as much or more important is that this project has the great potential to take trips offthe road that are on it today. And I've always said that just because they build a new grocery store doesn't mean I buy more milk. I'm going to buy the same amount of milk, but I just may get to drive a little less distance to get there. And I think this project is typical of that approach. So, Mr. Dearborn, I appreciate that perspective as well. We did have discussion in the break about noise from delivery vehicles, and our current leases don't really give us the ability to restrict the hours of delivery vehicles, but recognizing that that can be problematic, GL commercial has agreed to work very closely with all future leaseholders to emphasize the desire for them not to have delivery vehicles backing, you know, at all hours of the moming. Sometimes these delivery vehicles will get there before the store hours open, and they sit and wait for store hours. So while we do have a truck well with a sound wall on the south side already, you know, they've agreed to work with the tenants as best they can, bu! unfortunately, at this time I can't limit the delivery hours because it would not be consistent with the leases that are in place right now. But with that, Im huppy to address any questions you may have. We are comfortable with the noise language of no outside amplified sound shall be directed to the east or south property line, and open to any comments and discussion you may have. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other final comments on this? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that if you limit -- and I understand the noise of the beep, beep for the delivery trucks, but if you limit them to hours -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do that again. I want to see how she types that out. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I get a tape of that? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I won't do it again now. You're all making fun of me. Page 63 of69 November 16,2017 But the point is that if we limit those hours -- and I understand some of the residents' concern or the residents' concern about that all you're going to do is add in more traffic. I'd rather have those big trucks with deliveries for food coming in at five a.m., even if they've got to sit there if the store opens at seven, than have them on the road blocking traffic and making a left-hand turn at 9 a.m. when I'm trying to get my son to school, or 8 a.m. or whatever. So I actually think -- we didn't say anything. You-all brought that up. But let me come offhours, man, to get those delivery trucks and keep them offthe road and less traffrc. Just my two cents wofth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with thaq we'll close the public hearing, and we'll move first to discussion. There's a couple of things -- we've talked about a lot of issues to change in the document. And I think all of us are on board with that and, Tim, you have reiterated those to us. So those changes need to be made. You have agreed to reduce the sign height to 15 feet. It's not - you didn't even ask to have it - it looks like you did that before this version got to us. I didn't see where the sign limit was increased, so we know that's been done. And that was Mr. Nicola's document. And then you're going to add all the language we discussed in the outdoor sound language. So other than that, I don't see anything else that is beyond what we already know you're going to change. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Stone had some suggested language. We wrote it as quickly as we could on the trips for ITE, but we'll be getting that from him for inclusion, and the l5-foot sign limitation was on Logan Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. With that, everything you said we're in agreement with, and greatly appreciate your input and support. MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, for clarification, where is that l5-foot sign limitation in the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAN: They're going to have the -- I don't know if you add it. Does it need to be - I don't remember exactly if it's in a section of the PUD or you've got to add it for the limitation, but it's going to be in there now is what's going to happen. So, yeah, okay. MR. HANCOCK: Proposed to add it as Item H under 4, developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I didn't remember. It's not in there yet. Okay. Now, as far as any further discussion, does this panel have any before we vote for a motion? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: The first motion we need to make is for the GMPA subject to staffs clarification of language that Corby czrme up and showed us on the overhead, and the GMPA is PL20160001 100. Does anybody have a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that motion and second subject to the staffcorrections shown on record? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved CHAIRMAN STRAN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, sigxifo by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. Page 64 of 69 November 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 6-0. The next one is the PUD. Ifs PL20160001089. Anybody - and that -- now, we have had a lengthy discussion over different changes to the document. The motion needs to include those, I would assume, and other things you just read into the record. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both the motion to approve and second were to include those items I just - COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely, Mark. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And before we finish, Mr. Ratterree wanted a moment to talk to us. Actually to talk in general. Doesn't have to be to us. MR. RATTERREE: Good aftemoon, Mr. Chair. Forthe record - but guess it doesn't need to be for the record, but I'm going to say my name anyway. Kevin Ratteree with GL Homes. I will not be given this opportunity probably in front of the County Commission meeting when these two items come up, so I wanted to take just a minute of your time to actually thank Bruce Anderson for the service that he has given to our company over the years. He has been one of the most outstanding attomeys that I have ever had the pleasure to work with, and lve dealt with a lot over the years. His patience, his temperament his knowledge of this system has been invaluable to us, and I just wanted to take a little moment and say thank you publicly to Bruce for all of his dedicated service to us and to the residents of Collier County, and I wish him many, .*y, many happy years in retirement. Thank you, Bruce. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. That was nicely said. You do know he applied for a job on this panel. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That would be interesting. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Just kidding. He's coming back in avengeance. Okay. That takes us to the end of our regular agenda for today. We're into new business, and there is no new business, so we'll go to old business, No. I l, and there's a couple status reports that Ned wanted to request to discuss with staffor whoever. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Two items. The first one has to do with the native vegetation preservation. I think back in July we -- I believe we acted unanimously and thought we were approving a change to the LDC that would have prohibited off-site preservation, but then it turned ou! and we were educated by stafi that really we need to deal with that, if we want to deal with it at all, in the GMP. So the reason that I wanted to add this to old business is to be sure that we don't lose this piece. I'm not expecting a detailed status report but just to let staffknow that I think we do want this to come back at Page 65 of69 November 16,2017 some future time, not too distant future, so that we can test our continued interest in prohibiting oflsite or, perhaps, prohibiting land donations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I recall a conversation, but then as the months pursued and we rounded out how we handled the Conservation Collier issue with the preservation language, we realized that it might be practical to allow half an acre, which was 27,000 some odd square feet, as an ability to go offsite but prohibiting anlthing above that, to lock it into that and no more. I'm not sure changing the GMP is necessary as a result of that type of change. So maybe you can enlighten us, Mike. Your memory's probably a lot better than mine. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning mdZoningdirector. Thank you, Mark. That's exactly what I was going to say. We have an executive summary going to the Board of County Commissioners on December 12th asking them to direct us to advertise to bring the proposed preservation standard changes to the Board on the 23rd of January, and within those we do allow for a half acre of off-site preservation to be provided for and also some exceptions related to essential services. So with that, staffwas unaware of what the Planning Commission's intentions were related to anything related to a GMP amendment, and that's what I was really wanting to get clarification on. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I thought we were done with any followup need unless, Ned, you had -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, no. I think we -- I was fine with the de minimus concept of half at acre, but I have all along been opposed to the land donation option, and I thought that others felt the same way. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think what we did was forward it to the Board with a recommendation that we do away with that but that we couldn't do away with it ourselves. I thought that's how it ended up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That may be. MR. BOSI: The third aspect of the Planning Commission recommendation is the land donation altemative has been removed making a monetary payment the only method for satisfying off-site preservation donation requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't that -- that was found that's consistent with the GMP? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's how I thought we liked it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe the GMP permits land donation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think Mr. Bosi is the interpreter of the GMP. So, Mike, you'll need to tell us what that means in regards to the GMP. And if you guys are satisfied we're consistent with the GMP and we've got a de minimis allowance within the lalguage that's now going forward for approval, we might be done is all I'm suggesting, and -- MR. BOSI: And I think one of -- the confusion may have been how the language was written within the GMP, that it requires the option for a land donation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. BOSI: And staffs -- from discussion, staffs interpretation was that it does not requile - it allows for but does not require that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm going to look to the County Attorney and say, what is your interpretation? If it calls for the provision of that option, doesn't that option have to be provided for? MR. STONE: Well, Mike, as the interpreter of the GMP and the code, is the ultimate interpreter of that, so we defer to his opinion on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you appeal it. Well, you can appeal his decision, but then it goes to me. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. STONE: Well, there hasn't been an official interpretation yet. If you'd like to apply for one - CHAIRMAN STRAN: No,I'm just saying, I'm not sure we're gaining anywhere. We're just going to spend a lot of time doing something that's already been accomplished. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We don't want to waste time. So, in other words, it's Mike's Page 66 of69 November 16. 2017 interpretation that the land donation option is offthe table, it's not permitted? MR. BOSI: With the adoption of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if the Board adopts what we presented to them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. The second one has to do with NIMs, and I realize that there was some disagreement up here on that resolution at the October l9th meeting. I thought a compromise of sorts was struck along the lines of -- the provision ofa written hanscript ofthe NIM would remain an option for the developer but would not be required, but in exchange, staffwas requested to poll the Planning Commission and identifo those who waated to receive a wave file or an MP4 or something so that they could listen to the proceedings that take place at the NIM, and then Judy Puig followed up with an email, and I said, yes, I wanted to see those, and I don't believe that was followed through with. Also, the Chairman said in - and I take this from the minutes of $e October 19 meeting. Mr. Chairman, you saw three problems. Number one is the quality. We need to have some language that insists on better quality material, better quality audio devices used for those NIMs. That would help solve the problem tremendously. Number two, we need to insist the representatives identifi themselves when they speak at the NIM, and then the county representative, whoever that is, the planner, take some kind of lead in making sure people don't talk over one another and try to organize it a little bit ifthe facilitators ofthe applicant do not. So I was wanting a status report on that. MR. BOSI: And, thank you. Mr. Bellows, with coordination ofone ofour specific trainers for our principal planners, Kay Deselem, put together -- and this I was going to share with the Chairman for his guidarce in terms of furlhering it on to you. I car just share it with the Planning Commission right now. It caa be expanded upon. But here's the reminders we put to staff: Staffto take notes on the commitments that are made. Be as proactive as necessary to keep the meeting on track and make sure the questions are repeated and speakers to identi! themselves, that only one person speaks at a time. Ifbackground chatter becomes an issue, to speak up. These are reminders to our staffbefore - you know, in their preparation for the neighborhood information meeting. And then for our staffmembers to provide to the agent, you know, before the meeting takes place, in their preparation, provide the required - that they have to provide the required afiidavit and its attachments prior to tle meeting in compliance with the LDC ifthey havent done so; post signs at the site outside on doors and in the buildings to direct attendees to the exact meeting location; and ensure that there is excellent quality sound amplification equipment available and working for this meeting. And if there's permalent equipmen! please bring a tested, working portable microphone that will provide a clear recording; and introduce yourselfand your team members; remind the audience that the meeting is being recorded in compliance with county regulations. Ask that only one person speak at a time to ensure a quality recording is made. and each speaker to identifr himself or herself. Also the prepared documents for handouts at the NIMs, that these documents could include approved and proposed site plans as well as approved and proposed PUD documents that show the differences in uses that would be allowed in the existing and proposed rezoning district. Note that these documents, if provided, will become part oftle record and will be provided to the Planning Commission as well as the Heanng Examiner. And you need to provide a written synopsis ofthe meeting as well as providing the audio/videotape. Note that written synopsis must include a list ofall questions and answers from the NIM and any commitments made by the applicant. Those are the guidelines to ensure -- but what I'm also asking my planners to do is remind the agents, ifthey have not watched any ofthe Planning Commission's discussion on the neighborhood information meeting and the importance that are placed upon the neighborhood information meetings and the summaries that are provided for, that they have to reiterate that to the agents, because we need to stress to the agents that Pase 67 of 69 November 16.201'7 it has become an issue that the Planning Commission is concemed with; that they need to do everything that's possible to provide that clear, concise transcript or summary of what was discussed, the speakers who made comments, and the commitments that were made. So we're really trying to convey your -- your impression upon the agents that this will become an issue if they do not pay attention and attention isn't made to the audio equipment, the proceedings, and then, ultimately, the commitments that are made, because the issues that are addressed at the neighborhood information meeting should be commitments that are conveyed to in the PUD document, if there are any that are made. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's excellent. Mike, did you -- maybe I missed hearing you say this -- maybe you said it and I missed it. In ttre case -- each time a developer representative speaks, he or she is going to identifr himself or herself? MR. BOSI: We had mentioned that they identify themselves with each time that they -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: They speak. MR. BOSI: With a transition - with the transition of speakers, that the individual who represents the developer needs to be able to let the audio - the person listening to the audio know that we're fansiting back an individual, not from the public back to someone from -- to the agent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So what happened this morning with Wayne Arnold being associated with statements he said he didn't make, that would not happen if the speaker, the real speaker, would have identified himself or herself before speaking. MR. BOSI: And that's a further clarification I think we probably can make. Each time there's a transition in speaker, the speaker who's taking over, to identifo themselves, even if it's repetitive. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. BOSI: And we're reminded that it's not for the individuals at the meeting, because after a while they'll know who they are, and it may seem odd, but we're doing that for the individual who's listening to the audiotape who doesn't have the benefit of the video, which Stan wants. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, can they do video if they want? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's provided for in the administrative procedure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's wonderful what you're doing. And I have been to some of these meetings and, you're right, it's the equipment, which is usually -- each agent has to give their name here at the Planning Commission. If they would have to do that at the NIM meeting, that should take care of everything. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But every time they talk, they'll forget. We don't say, hey, this is Stan Chrzanowski. She knows who we are. But I imagine the audio of this meeting, without a video, you'd have a hard time after a while. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's true. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Anybody else have anything else under old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any public comment? I can see the room is just full of people waiting to do so. And is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Made by Patrick, seconded by Diane. All in those favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 68 of69 November 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AyE. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: We're out ofhere. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike. There being no further business for the good of the Count5r, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWGHT E. BROCK CLERK These minutes approved by the Board onl)' Ll ' 11 ,as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 69 of69