Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/15/2018February 15,2018 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF TI{E COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 15,2018 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 Fred Reischl, Principal Planner Eric John, Principal Planner Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attomey Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page I of67 February 15,2018 PROCEEDINGS CFIAIRMANSTRAN: Okay. Goodmorning,everyone. WelcometotheThursday,February 15th 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 STRAIN: Okay. 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: Mrs. Ebert's here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. I don't know of any changes to today's agenda. We have four cases. The last three all involve the same property, so actually we have two different properry locations. Ray, do you have any changes needed to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is March 1st. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the March l st meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. We're good. Approval of minutes. We have one set of minutes sent to us electronically. It was the January 18th, 2018, minutes. Are there any corrections, changes, or comments? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who4 whoa, whoa. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Cimrs Pointe is C-i-r-r-u-s, like the cloud formation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Subjectto the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will move approval of the minutes of the 18th of January. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. Page 2 of 67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN; BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On February 13th, the Board of County Commissioners heard two items from the Planning Commission, the Antilles RPUD and the conditional use for the storage facility on Basic Drive. They were approved on the Board's summary agenda subject to CCPC conditions. The Board also heard the Foxfire PDI. That was -- received approval from -- or recommendation -- yeah, the affirmative from the Hearing Examiner. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, Ray. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ray, would you also please repoft on the Land Development Code changes and the resolution that the Board reached. MR. BELLOWS: Onwhich item? COMMISSIONER FRYER: On the off-site vegetation. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not as familiar with that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Mike was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was - there was a Board discussion on that on Tuesday. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The Board took no action on the off-site native vegetation amendment. They discussed some of the options they'd like to see brought back within the form of an ordinance, but there was no consensus that was arrived upon in terms of the three options, whether it be CCLAC, DSAC, or the Planning Commission's recommendations whether -- on the limitations of the off-site preserve, Planning Commission had the limitation of the half acre. CCLAC and DSAC had suggested one acre with a deviation up to two acres, and then the monetary payment, there was still - there wasn't consensus. So we're looking -- we're going to bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners within an ordinance, and they're going to make their final decision. So no fural decision has been made on the off-site preservation amendments. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There seemed to be a consensus, though, that land donations should continue to be permitted. MR. BOSI: There was -- there was not a consensus on any one of the issues other than they had - there was a 4-l recommendation to move forward with the -- move forward with the half-acre limitation. But once again, there was no decisions made. That was only a request to advertise. So there was no -- there was no capacity that they could make an offrcial decision offof an ordinance. So there was just a preview of the discussion to come. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the advertising will contain the land donation option. MR. BOSI: Advertising will notifo that there is going to be proposed amendments to the native preserve. MR. KLATZKOW: We're not advertising ye! okay. We need to bring the Board ordinance -- the Board is still discussing the various policy implications of everything, so nothing's been advertised yet. Nothing's finalized yet. We'll be bringing a draft ordinance to the Board with a number of different alternatives. And once the Board reaches some, at least, majority view as to what they'd like to see, then we'll advertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Jeff. Okay. That brings us -- is that the end of the BCC report Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Brings us to chairman's report. The only thing I'd like to ask, we've got four cases today. The last three are all for the mini-triangle. There's a lot of information there, and it's probably going to take a while to get through it all. Id like to ask before anybody speaks on this panel that you be recognized first so we don't have people talking over one another, and that when you do speak we make sure it's at a speed that our court reporter can handle, which is really very slow. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman. Page 3 of67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri hates it when I have coffee in the morning, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: This is a point of reference. Due to things beyond my control, I need to be somewhere by I o'clock. Probably need to leave here by l2:00 or 12:30. So I just wanted to give you a headsup. It was unexpected, but... CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. It's hard to gauge how long the - COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- issues from B through D will take. I usually can determine a little bit by the amount of people showing up for the meeting. There's not many members of the public here today. I thought the room would be packed. This is a groundbreaking project for the community, and we certainly will listen to those that are here. But without a lot of public input it may shorten the time frame in which we can finish it up. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And we'll go on to consent agenda. ***We have nothing carried over from other meetings, and that will move us right into our first advertised public hearing. It's 9,{. It's PUDA-PL201 60000087, and that's for the Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development. All those wishing to testifu on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures for 9,A.. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A brief conversation with Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have had quite a bit of conversations with not only Mr. Mulhere but I think at one point his client. This has been going on for a huge amount of time, probably longer than it really should have been. But at least we're here today. So I don't remember the gentleman's name, but I know I talked to him on the phone a couple times as well, and I think I talked to Commissioner Fiala about it as well. Karen? COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Spoke briefly with Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant. MR. MULFIERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere, for the record, here this moming representing Scott Allen. That's the gentleman's name. The Calusa Island -- I'm just finding the technical name of it here. This PUD, Calusa Island Village PUD, I'm sorry, was approved in March of 2004. It was amended a couple different times. When it was approved, it allowed for a mixed residential and commercial tract. And the exhibit on the visualizer is from that PUD that shows that mixed residential -- multifamily residential and commercial tract. Parking here and commercial, presumably, on the ground floor. Retail, restaurant - probably restaurant, and then four multifamily dwelling units. So the PUD is almost entirely built out with development that runs this way. This is the last remaining few parcels that have not been developed, and I'll show you another exhibit here. So the community clubhouse, swimming pool, and recreational facility are right here. This is the road that goes into Goodland; Goodland Drive. These three platted -- previously platted parcels prior to the PUD, which are part of the PUD, are undeveloped, and these would be the mixed-use multifamily tract Page 4 of 67 February 15,2018 identified in the PUD. My client purchased these two parcels. The association owns this parcel which they wish to retain as a bufFer and perhaps in the future for recreational uses. They have no intention of developing that. When I first prepared this submittal, and at the time of the neighborhood information meeting, I had proposed to downzone the property because my client's desire is to build a single-family home on one lot and potentially another one on the other lot, or somebody else may build that single-family home. But when I first submitted this, in respecting the other proper(y owners' rights, meaning the association, my request was to provide an option for single-family, which is - the PUD says in several locations that all residential types are permitted, but it doesn't expressly allow single-family within this tract. It only expressly allows multifamily, hence the need to do an amendment. My client really only wanted two units, but with respect to the association's property rights, we came in and requested downzone -- or provided an alternative, which would be, really, a downzone, if constructed. We asked for three single-family units as an alternative to the commercial and multifamily. At the NIM everyone was suppoltive, very supportive of providing for this option and, if exercised, that would eliminate the commercial and the multifamily, which they really don't want to see on these small lots here; however, there was concerns expressed about asking for three. There was a preference for only asking for two, one unit for each of Mr. Allen's lots. And I talked to my client, he did not object, so we amended the request from a request for three single-family to two. We had a letter from the association supporling the proposed changes when we were proposing to provide the alternative for three units, but the County Attomey's Office, after we changed that, wanted to be sure that the association understood when we went down to two, that they were now losing the ability, if that right was exercised, to build a unit on their lot. And so I sent an email to and received an email back from the association president. Let's see. How do I make that a little bigger? I want to make sure I get it right. Right here. And this email, I think, clearly indicates that they are aware of that. Their desire is not to build a unit on that. Their desire is to use it for buflering and/or recreational purposes in the future. Obviously, if they want to do something recreational, they may have to do a PDI or some other minor change, because right now the only uses permitted on that are corrmercial, multifamily, or single-family, if this gets approved. I think that concludes my presentation. I don't know if there's anybody here to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAN: We'll find out in a minute. Is there any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with this at all, but nonetheless a couple of questions came to mind that I wanted to see what the answers were. First of all, would you mind explaining how exactly you would still put a dock on Lot 33. MR. MULI{ERE: Let me put the color exhibit -- oh, it's right here. So there are riparian rights. I do not know nor have I designed the - thank you, Heidi -- you know, a dock facility here. Obviously, you know you have a dock facility here, and there are setbacks required fronm each property line. I imagine that for this property here there would need to be some sort of an agreement allowing a dock to come out here. If it violates the riparian rights on this property, then they would have to come in and ask for a variance or a special exception. I think that runs through the Hearing Examiner process. Yes, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those red lines on that drawing may not be right. If you look at them down that side, they go through the houses instead of between the houses. And you see that with a lot of the Appraiser's stuff. They're offas much as 10 feet. So if you're going offthat to judge whether you can put a dock in, it may not be accurate. MR. MULHERE: And if you look at this, obviously, there's room here to do something, and it may be, you know, a minimal dock, a marginal dock. It will have to meet the setbacks. This property here does Page 5 of67 February 15,2018 present a problem, but they'll have to deal with that. We really didn't get into the issues there. Whether or not they can or can't, they may have to come in for special exception. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My second question is with respect to Lot 35. By changing from four multifamily down to two single-family, how does that affect, if at all, Lot35? What could be done on Lot 35 afterthis PUDA? MR. MULFDRE: So, again, as I originally submitted it, I had retained their rights for one single-family lot. You know, if my client builds a single-family lot here, then the right to do -- a single-family home here or here, then the right to exercise the commercial and multifamily goes away. The PUD is written that it's an option. But once you exercise one or the other option, the other one goes away. But after hearing from the association and other residents that they didn't want -- they weren't going to use it for residential and they wanted it to be limited to two units, we revised our application. So this lot here would -- could only be used for buffering, but I imagine if they wanted to expand their recreational facilities, they could go through a PDI, an insubstantial change to the PUD. It wouldn't be a use change, I don't think, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Technically, though, it's still going to be zoned multifamily commercial mixed use? MR. MIILIIERE: It will be zoned either multifamily commercial mixed use or single-family. It's a mixed-use tract. Bul again, if my client does build a single-family home, then the -- CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, but n 4.2, Bob, in your application it's preffy clear that if the other -- if two multifamily units are built on those lots, then the multifamily and commercial element all goes away. MR. MULHERE: Goes away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that the intention is those two lots are going to have single-family. So, in essence, I think to answer Ned's questions, it wouldn't have any zoning Ieft on it of any effect. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My last question: The NIM meeting which, again, I compliment you for, very audible and easy to follow, one of the - at least one of the spokespeople for the neighbors asked if the developer or the owners would be willing to relinquish the option of mixed-use multifamily so that it would only be single-family going forward. MR. MULHERE: You know, his intent is to build that. I don't know if he's here. Well, there's some other folks back there. They can speak to the issue. But -- come on up. You can come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, no. MR. MULHERE: That's Scott Allen. He's the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're the applicant. Okay. If you wantto - MR. MT LHERE: I didn't recognize him back there because, you know, he's hiding in the back. Well, I think I can answer the question. We just felt it was best from a property rights perspective to allow either option. His intent is to build a single-family home. I don't really know what else I can say in response to that. That's why we left both options in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't feel strongly about it but since it was raised at the NIM, I thought it ought to be raised here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I had, sr. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, there's a couple small changes that I think would clean this up on -- let me get to the right page. Of the PIID, it's on Page 4 of 7. It says, single-family limited to two dwelling units, parenthetical, one per platted lot. Since the methodolory in which those are applied to the property as spelled out in one of the other paragraphs, I think that adding that one per platted lot might just be confusing and not needed to be there. Do you have any problem striking that? MR. MULI#RE: Nope. Page 6 of 67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: I'm moving through the rest. I don't think there's any,thing else, but let me double-check. Nope. That will do it. I have a cleanup from staff, but other than that we're good. Thank you. Anybody else have any? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nope. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We'llmove on to staffreport. MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. After review -- I'm the third planner to review this - we found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan and compatible with the surrounding uses and, therefore, in the succession of planners that reviewed this, all three of us recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I subscribe to a few technical publications, and while there may be a doubt in people's mind that the climate is changing or that ifs manmade or whatever, I don't care, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that the sea level is rising. And a few months ago the Board of County Commissioners had a couple of scientists in here, and at that meeting, I think they adopted or maybe they were told that they should adopt a predicted sea level rise of about three feet by the year 2100. One of those scientists has since changed his mind to maybe five feet. Well, that appears to be like a foot a generation of rise, and that means that any coastal road you have, every generation is going to have to raise that road a foot to access anything that's out there. It seems like any project like this ought to have maybe staff include a segment in there, sea level rise and what will happen when the sea level rises, how fast we think it's going to rise, and, you know, the effect that it's going to have. I had everybody -- or saw the LiDAR for this project. They saw how low it is. You know, it's going to be a problem, and there's not a doubt in my mind it's happening. I'll be long dead before anybody -- you know, I may see the start of it, you know, the frst 10 years or so, but I'll be long dead before they do that frst foot ofroad rise. But there ought to be something in some of these coastal projects that says, you know, you're good for 50 years, then you may have to raise the road, raise your buildings, and all this other stuff. What do you think? MR. REISCHL: I believe on the LDC that it does require that we examine sea level rise during the PUD process, but I don't think it applies to a change in density like this. Just to bolster what you said, my association, the American Planning Association, does also encourage us to look at sea level rise and its effects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the forum for that is a policy discussion maybe under new business or something like that if it's agreed that it should be added to an agend4 especially more possibly from the BCC when the studies they've got going on get done. I know Stan firmly believes in sea level rise, and some of the people he's familiar with do, but until all the studies are done, I don't think we ought to be doing anything until we have more concrete evidence. It's still a controversial subject. Some people believe in it; some don't. I personally agree with you. I believe in ig but I don't think it's solid enough to enter into a land use issue yet at this time, so... MR. REISCHL: Well, as the designated land planning agency, you can recommend that to the Board, too. So that may be something for future discussion. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I see no harm in putting -- we do an environmental review, we do a stormwater review, we do this review, that review. I have no problems with this, I have no problems with that. I don't see any harm in just putting a little thing in there, sea level, this project may be affected by sea level rise in as little as 20, 30, 40, 50 years. You know,lust -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, I think it's too premature in the process to even get into that. If the LDC required that analysis after the studies that are being put forth by the Board and others get done, I'm in PageT of67 February 15,2018 full agreement with you. But at this point there's too much controversy on it to know exactly what's going to happen. Sure, I think rise of some kind may happen, but I'm not an authority on it. I'm certainly not scientifically involved in it. I would just rather we stick to the facts of the LDC as they are known today, and then those other issues we can address as they become more mature. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. Then I won't have to bring it up at the next project either. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, you can bring it up. You're a Planning Commission member. You can bring up anything you want, Stan. I just - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I defer to your judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, if you mindtakingthat offthe screen -- MR. MULI{ERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's not the project we're talking about right now. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Just trying to save time and get it ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be here all day for yoq Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only point I have about staffis there's a sentence on Page 4 of 9 of the staffreport that says, this is an insubstantial change. I only wish it was. We would have saved the gentleman a lot of time and heartache and money, but it's not. It's a PUDA. So that correction needs just to be on the record that this is a - MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- considered a substantial change. MR. REISCHL: It started out we called it a PDI and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm familiar with the history. Ijust wanted to make ttrat clarification to you. MR. REISCHL: You are correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Are there any members of the public registered to speak, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member here that would like to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, Bob, I'm sure you don't have a rebuttal. So with that, we'll close the public hearing. Entertain a motion. There has been one clarification removing some language referencing the one platted lot that we went over with Bob. Other than that most everything else is as written. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the PUDA with those clarifications. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion made by Ned, seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: All in favor, signifl by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. MLILI{ERE: Thank you. Page 8 of67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Bob. Now, our next item up is actually three items. We have three advertised public hearings for one propefty. We're going to - actually for -- it's a collection of properties. We're going to discuss all three items concurrently, and we'll vote on each one separately. **>kl'll read them all offas we do our disclosures and other issues. First of all, 9 -- it's advertised public hearing 9B. It's PL20160003084/CPSS20l6-3, and it's forthe mini-triangle mixed-use subdistrict, and this is the Growth Management Plan request part of it. The second item up is the companion PUD for that same project; it's PL20160003054. And the third item that would be partly discussed with this is an LDC amendment that's needed for this project; it's LDCA-PL2o160003642. All those wishing to testiff on behalf of any of these three items, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the Planning Commission, and we'll start down at the end with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than those that are part of the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I had a meeting with Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Pezeshkan and Mr. Starkey, and I had some email correspondence with Ross Mclntosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had telephone conversations and email exchanges with Mr. Mulhere, including his client, Mr. Starkey. I have -- had a conversation with Naples Vice Mayor Penniman, and I have met with representatives of the Old Naples Association regarding airport issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have had with Bob Mulhere, I have spoke with the CRA, and also with Mr. Mclntosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine are lengthy. Im goingto save mine for last. Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just standard communication with Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? I'm working both sides to the middle. COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Oh. You're confusing me. I spoke to Mulhere and Mr. Starkey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this project from its beginning, we started out with some -- an RFP and some contracts. I actually reviewed those with some of the county staffat that time way back when. I also met with the applicant and his team for a long period of time on Tuesday. I separately met with staffyesterday for another long period of time. When this project was first conceived and awarded, they produced some renderings that were rather dramatic and really portrayed what this project was going to be to the county. I have used those in various presentations that I've done around Collier County. ln some of those presentations, I was approached by many people about further discussions. I cannot remember all the people that I talked to, but I did talk to Vice Mayor Linda Penniman at one poin! and I also talked to several of our county commissioners on a one-to-one and others that may have seen some of the presentatlon. And then I did receive this morning an email that I've -- it's different than the other ones. I received it from one of our Planning Commission members, Mr. Fryer. And, Jeff, as far as how that kind of an email should be handled, do you have any input on that? MR. KLATZKOW: There are a couple things to consider. One, there's nothing wrong with sending a one-way communication between each other conveying whatever information you want. Having said that, if you do, you run the risk of somebody hitting a reply button, and once somebody hits a reply button, you're now in violation of the Sunshine, all righg so that although you can send a one-way communication, my advice is don't or, at the very least, be real, real careful if you do, and it really should be something that you feel is imperative because, again, you run the risk of somebody inadvertently hitting "reply" or even worse, "reply all," which happens all the time. Page 9 of67 February 15,2018 The other thing that I've seen over the course of the many years is that people blind copy other people on emails, and you may be replying to people you don't even know that you're replying to. That has happened on occasion. So, again, you're allowed to do it, but my recommendation is you don't. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I take the point. And at the time, it was 6 o'clock in the morning. I mainly sent it to staff people, but I wasn't entirely sure that it would get to where it needed to go, and it was just simply a document. I thought about the potential for the reply and the Sunshine Law issue, but I guess I felt that it was very unlikely you would reply to me. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, you CC'ed me, and I did not reply to you, forthe record, and I actually did not read the attachment. I wasn't - I hadn't had that issue in the years I've been here occur before. I'm going to ask all the Planning Commission members, don't ever email me anything about a case coming before us, period. The only time I've received an email from a Planning Commission member is if they're going to be absent and they're just explaining they're going to be absent, and they've copled that to staff. So I think all of us ought to go by that. It's the safest way to go, and there's no mistakes. So with that, I conclude my comments on tlat issue. So, Bob, at this point the presentation's all yours. MR. MULFDRE: Thank you very much. Good morning, again. It's my day before the Planning Commission today. With me this moming, Jerry Starkey, Real Estate Partners lnternational; Fred Pezeshkan; Alex Pezeshkan; Dick Grant, who is the land-use attomey working with us on this. Barry Jones is our civil engineer. Normal Trebilcock has a conflict at the moment. We're hoping he'll arrive as soon as he's completed. He has a meeting actually at another counf building, but that may be a while. I've had a lot of meetings with Norm over the last two days and a lot of discussion, so I'll attempt not to delay you, to respond to some of the issues that are transportation related, but we also think he'll get here as soon as he can. I'm sure everybody's familiar with the location, but for the public and others who may be interested at home or wherever, the properly is located just offof the intersection, the triangle created by Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, and that area is known as the mini-triangle, and it is defined by Commercial Drive -- Commercial, Davis, and U.S.41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now you're getting pretly fancy electronically, Bob. MR. MULFIERE: Now let's see if I can erase it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's the first time I've seen you do something like that. Good for you. MR. MULIfiRE: Look atthat. Pretty good. Moving on. Just a little bit of history. The CRA was -- the Community Redevelopment Agency was established in March of 2000. That's nearly 18 years ago. It was established to use tax increment financing and other methods to encourage redevelopment, economic diversity, and improvement, and to improve the inadequate and aging infrastructure in the CRA. And the CRA is a lot larger than just the mini-triangle. As many of you know, it covers the Bayshore/Gateway area as well as the Davis Boulevard/U.S. 41 area. The mini-triangle is unique, however, in that within the CRA plan and within the Comprehensive Plan, it is identified as a catalyst site. So the mini-triangle that I just showed you surrounded by Commercial, Davis, and 4l , is a catalyst site intended to be redeveloped and spur and drive additional economic -- private sector economic investment or public/private partnerships in the redevelopment area, pafticularly along the Davis Boulevard area. This exhibit here we shared with many neighbors both at the NIM and at other meetings. It just gives you a perspective of the larger area. I think it's a little bit helpful. And the mini-triangle is right here; right there. A couple of quick -- oh, I've got to erase that. A couple of quick photos of the existing conditions. I'm sure many of you drive past this property fairly regularly. I do. A lot of previously existing businesses are closed down now. There are some smaller Page l0 of67 February 15,2018 businesses that are still operating. There's been some improvement along Davis. As you know, there's a new Porsche dealership on the other side of Davis closer to Airport, and there's been some other improvements. But this particular area has really seen no investment and no improvement over the 20 years that the CRA has been in place. More pictures of the area. One of the requirements for establishing a CRA is a finding of blight, and I think this certainly constitutes that. This is just a little closer perspective. Subject parcel and the catalyst area, the full mini-triangle. Our site is 5.33 acres in size, and as Mr. Strain indicated, there are three companion petitions here. There's the small-scale Growth Management Plan. As you know, a small-scale plan is permitted for projects that are under 10 acres, and several years ago the State revised the limitations allowing also text to be added to small-scale. They were previously just map amendments. So this is a small-scale amendment. It's also a mixed-use planned developmen! and we have a Land Development Code amendment that is expressly limited to the exclusion from the airport height limitations in the LDC. There is already one such exclusion granted down closer to the Marco Island airpoft, or the Marco Shores towers, and obviously we went to both the Naples Airyort Authority and the FAA, and the FAA, we'll see as we get a little bit later into the presentation, issued several letters, the finding of no hazard. Let me just point out that you'll see that the proposed zoning is MPUD-GTMUD-MXD. That is because we are retaining the gateway mixed-use district mixed development standards that are set forth in the overlay in the LDC for this area; otherwise, it would just be MPUD, but we're retaining those overlay rights. In having some meetings leading up to this meeting -- there's a lot of words on here. I underlined what I think are the important ones -- it was suggested that we consider adding a vision, purpose, and intent statement to the PUD. Everyone kind of understands what our objectives are. Everyone can see the graphics, and -- but it was suggested that maybe that needed to be clarified a little bit in text. And so I've prepared this Ianguage. I just want to go over it briefly with you. The mini-tiangle is intended to be a catalyst project. It's going to spur further development. In order to facilitate a vibrant mixed-use development and a viable market demand, the PUD, the MPUD, provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility. For the purpose of this PUD-MPUD, mixed use shall include, at a minimum, residential development multifamily, along with a mix of commercial uses, including retail, restauran! and office uses, and may include other commercial uses such as a hotel with ancillary commercial uses, a multiplex movie theater, bowling center, physical fitness facilities, personal services, and other commercial uses. The development form shall be two or more multi-story structures with commercial uses generally on the ground floor, but some could be on subsequent floors. A multiplex could be on the third or fourth floor, for example. Office would certainly be on upper floors with supporting parking on the first four or five floors, depending on the ultimate development and the nature of the amount of parking that's required. The PUD does, as you know, establish minimums and maximums for residential density, commercial intensity to ensure a viable mixed-use development. I just want to share with you a little bit very quickly, the timeline. December 2015 the county sought proposals for this property. The CRA selected Real Estate Partners Irternational. We held a pre-application meeting in November of 2016. We submitted December 21st,2016. So we've been in the review process for well over a year now. We had many, many, many, many meetings with staffand with others. We met with the Naples Airport Authority, as I indicated. We've met with the CRA, both the CRA advisory board and CRA staff. We had ourNIM on October 18th,2017. We went before the CRA advisory board in an official capacity to present the project to them on November 7th; received unanimous recommendation. And here we are before you. Our BCC meeting is scheduled for March 27th. Let me go back. I want to point out a project right here called Trio. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but there is -- this site has been cleared and is prepped for development. Mr. Fortino is in the audience. Mr. Fortino and others are proposing to develop a mixed-use project on that. It's a little bigger than two acres. It is - at this point there's an SDP approved for a mixture of residential and hotel uses. The zoning Page 11 of67 February 15,2018 on this district allows for a zoned height of 112 feet. This project takes advantage of that. And let me just move on. And this is from the approved Site Development Plan, and you can see the structure here and parking structure, access here, parking structure. So the site plan has been approved, as I said -- yikes. There must be an easier way to erase all this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good luck. You're dealing with Microsoft Windows, so... MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, we'll leave that one there. I putthis up here because it shows some perspectives of the building, so that was my only reason. There's an east perspective and a west perspective. This is our neighbor immediately adjacent to us. And the building height -- I've got to erase that. You can't see. As I said, it's 1 12 zoned -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Troy's coming to give you a hand. MR.MULHERE: Thankyou. Howdoleraseitallatonce? Clear. Well,duh. Thanksforthe technical support - is 124 feet. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Troy. MR. MULHERE: And as you know, our zoned height is 160 feet. So there is an appropriate transition; that was my point in showing you this. There's an appropriate transition from their height to our height. Though we are higher, it's an appropriate transition. Now we can ge! I think, into some of the details. By righq the PUD provides for 210 multifamily units. We have met with staffalong the way, and as is always the case with a mixed-use project, one of the issues that staffis concerned with and wants to make sure that they address is the assurance that the project will be mixed use. You know, if you were to go in and just build commercial and walk away, you don't have a mixed-use project. If you were to go in and build just residential and walk away, you don't have a mixed-use project. So we agreed to a minimum number of 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses. As we went through this process and most recently we heard that that minimum was not reassuring enough to ensure a really viable mixed use, so we've increased that number -- it's not reflected in your document so I'm sharing it with you now -- to a minimum of 100 multifamily dwelling units. Wehavetherighttobuild l52hotelrooms. Wehave 14,000 squarefeetof anymixtureofretail, restaurant. We have been talking to very high-end Cineplex operators. We've been talking to hotel - I say "\rye" -- my clients have been talking to hotel operators. Flags that you would know, flags that you would immediately recognize. We've been talking to national restaurateurs. Again, high end and names that you would recognize, but we're not at liberty to disclose those. Also, the maximum heighg as I think I mentioned, is 168 -- according to the Naples Airport Authority and the FAA letters of findings of no hazard, the maximum height that they can support and have approved is 168 feet above mean sea level. The Naples - I guess the Naples runway, the Naples site is eight feet above mean sea level, so that allows for a height of 160 feet. As far as the way the county measures height, we would be a zoned height of 160 feet and an actual height of 168 feet and that keeps us within the restrictions that the FAA included within their letters. CTIAIRMAN STRAN: BOb? MR. MULI{ERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I don't mean to intemrpt your presentation. I try never to do that. Could you back up on that. If you're already at eight feet NGVD at the airport and you are now going to build to zoned height of 160 feet NGVD, that gives you I 52 feet more building height. Right or wrong? MR. MULHERE: Zoned is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, zoned, it's 160 NGVD. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So zoned is measured from -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're already at eight. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So the actual should -- we just -- we don't reflect this NGVD in the document today. This came about as discussions. You're absolutely right. It should just be the actual NGVD. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's -- I'm worried that you're going to be shorting yourself eight feet. Page 12 of 67 February 15,2018 MR. MULHERE: You're right. It should bejust the actual height. And we didn't - that's not in the document. That would be a change that we would make here today. So I appreciate that. Thank you. We also have a conversion matrix. These have been used many times in Collier County. They are typically based on trip generation rates. Ours is based on trip generation rates. We have a maximum p.m. peak hour trip generation of 875 two-way p.m. peak hour unadjusted trips. That is the marimum threshold that cannot be exceeded. h discussing this with staff, they also wanted to ensure an)'thing statutorily -- we may be even required - to identifu maximum levels of intensity and density. You're not required to typically establish minimum, though we have those, but you are, I think, required to establish maximums. So we've established a maximum of 400 multifamily units, 200 hotel unis,200,000 square feet of any combination ofthe commercial uses, and then these other uses can only come about ifthe conversion is utilized, and that's 150 ALF unis subject to a 0.45 floor area ratio; 60,000 square feet of air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage; ard 30,000 square feet ofnew car dealership. Now, those uses will all be indoor within those multi-story structures. There will be no outside storage, no outside activities. So it will lookjust like an office building or a residential building. And those would be included within the inside. And the reason for these is to ensure that we have enough market flexibility. And I want to give you an example. I mentioned the Trio site right next to us. By right, they have the ability to build residential or hotel or a combination ofthe two. They do not have to go through this process, this zoning process. It's allowed by right. They have an approved SDP, but they could amend that SDP and, for example, build a 150-room hotel. Well, if they build a I 50-room hotel, there isn't going to be a market for us to build a 1 50-room hotel. So we need the market flexibility to be able to convert uses ftom one to the other. Our intention is to go forward with the development exactly as you see i! by righ! but we need that flexibility. Thals why we put in the conversion matrix. You know, there's been no investment in this area for more than 20 years. The first 20 was a decline, then it was status quo, and now you have people stepping up to the plate to invest hundreds of millions of dollars. The market can change at any time. We need the flexibility. So some other, I think, important issues: We have been working with Mr. Fortino. I don't know that we have a final agreement yet, but we'll get there. We've met with FDOT. FDOT - we have to go through tle permifting and design process with them, but they would prefer a shared access. I'm going to show some exhibits and give you a little more detail on dris, but we have been meeting to develop a mutually agreeable shared access offof U.S. 4l. We also put in a condition that staff worked with us on, County Attomey's Office worked with us on that requires - the staffhas a trigger to ensure that before this project is through we have actually met the minimums, and although this says 50, we have agreed to raise that to 100, the second bullet. This is the master plan. And I do want to go over the site access, but I have a better exhibit to do that with, and so I won't use this exhibit to show you that. But this is the master plan. As you can see, we have C4 GTMUD-MXD adjacent to us on the east. I think the U-Haul operation is immediately adjacent to us to the east, and then, as I said, Trio to the west right at the tip ofthe triangle. You can see that we have two major state roads really as -- on our boundaries there. And this is the exhibit that I would prefer to use to go over the site access. This was prepared by Norm Trebilcock. I want to be able to - I'm so old school Im used to using that. Let's try this. Right here. Right about here is the existing left tum into the property that is the subject of the Trio SDP. We propose, at least preliminarily - and we don't have final agreemen! but the idea is to move that down here creating more stacking capacity for Ieft tuming movements and then to share an entrance with ourselves and with Trio. We don't have final design yet. We don't have a final agreement, but we are working on that. It may end up being on the Trio property. It may end up being on the mini-triargle property. It may end up being on both properties, but we will have, because FDOT is the permitting agency and prefers it, shared access. That should be good for everybody, because two access points create more conflict. As far as some of the other entr),vr'ays, as you can see -- so this would be a left-in, a right-in and a Page 13 of 67 February 15,2018 right-out. There's a right-in/right-out here. There is a left-in, right-in/right-out here, and there is a righrin/right-out here. So you have four means of ingress and egress on this master plan and an interconnected internal roadway system with very adequate stacking for vehicles once they leave the roadway. Site signs will be important, and we will address that; direct people which way they're going to go and what they're looking for. There is another potential interconnection to Commercial Drive. And to the degree that we can make that happen at some point it's certainly exciting to us because we would be able to access Commercial Drive. I think -- actually, I think, the actual point is right here. So let me erase that. Yeah, right here. That's the U-Haul. And so, you know, right now there's only one way in and out of that operation. So there's a lot of benefits to this, but I don't think there are any legal ways to get there today. It's something we'll have to work on as we move forward. I point it out because I think it's a good option moving forward. Let me hit that clear button. Hey. Okay. This is a colorized rendering of our master plan. This depicts three buildings. As you know, retail and restaurant would likely be on the first floor. Behind that would be your parking -- structured parking access, and then moving up levels of parking, and then above that residential, hotel, offrce, those types of USES. The next few slides are the renderings that are in your packet. I think just maybe showing them. This has ghosted in the proposed Trio project. It has our project and the surrounding area. I think you can see from this that it is not out of context with the area; that you know, you could build a 112-story (sic) building by right throughout this mini-triangle catalyst area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So 112 feet, not story. MR. MULHERE: What'd I say, story? Yeah, feet, thank you. Sorry. Thank you. This is another rendering of the project as we -- as we see it moving forward. These are conceptual. Obviously, we're still talking to potential tenants and things like that. But the idea is to make this very, very vibrant, have a lot of activity there, have recreational types or entertainment types of activity, such as a movie theater, to attract people and restaurants, and then some ancillary retail. The retail would only survive if there was people there for another reason; living there or coming there, if you think about Mercato, for example. This is much smaller. We're talking 5.3 acres here. Another rendering by Zyscovich Architects. And then Venice Landscape Architects prepared some renderings. I think these are really nice, but they may have also confused some folks on a few things that I want to clarifo right now. FDOT requires a 5- or 6-foot sidewalk. I think it's a 6-foot sidewalk on their -- you know, within their right-of-way. We have no intention of encroaching into that in any way with dining or anything but, moreover, our site is going to be elevated, so there will need to be a small retaining wall. So you would have the right-of-way, the sidewalk, the retaining wall, then landscaping, then potentially some outdoor dining. So it will be our responsibility within our own project to ensure that people can move whether they go through a restaurant, as you're familiar with, to an outdoor dining area, or it's more of a promenade-type situation. Most likely, if that occurs, that's going to occur in the center of the project and not on the outskirts. But there could be some outdoor dining tlere, but it will not infringe upon those sidewalks. If we're going to do any kind of landscaping in the right-of-way - I know staffput a condition on the PUD that that -- that that be permitted through FDOT. And, yes, we would do that. You know, whether it's trees in the swale portion. We don't really have any intent in doing that at this point. The landscaping would be on our side, but it may be a good option, and it may make things look nicer, so we appreciate that staff does not object to that as long as we get it permitted. These are just some other perspectives of the project; conceptual. So this would be -- and I think this is where the confusion came in, because you can see that there's a 5-foot strip there that's landscaped and then a sidewalk. That is within the right-of-way. If we were to landscape that as a protection between the pedestrians and the travel lane, we would get the permit from FDOT, and then you can see the dining area there. But actually that will be elevated, so... Page 14 of 67 February 15,2018 Another perspective. Parking structure perspective; typical; the typical perspective. And so there are a few other things I want to go over before I conclude my portion of the presentation and open it up to questions. Mr. Chairman, I do have - which we can put on the visualizer -- all of the specific SIC code uses. I know that that was discussed in several of my meetings. I have that here. I don't want to do that right now. I imagine that will come up during the questions. CHAIRMAN STRAN: YeS, it wiII. MR. MULHERE: I wanted to point out - I hate to do this, but can I go to the visualizer for a minute. I just wanted to point out the overlay allows a couple of buffer options, and it requires - all other developments -- this is not in an activity center. So all other developments must provide one of the following: A l0-foot-wide Type D buffer meeting the desigr standards in the LDC or a hardscape area extending from the back of the street zone to the primary front facade expanding the public realm. And it gives you a little bit of a drawing here as to what that might look like. I mean, think on a lower volume stree! you might be able to bring the public realm right out to the right-of-way. In this case, obviously, we have higher volumes. They're major arterial roadways. So we don't want to -- we don't think there would be a lot of attraction for being right on top of the street, so we would have to put some landscaping in and those types of things; however, I just did want to point out that there's a lot of flexibility in the code, and we meet or exceed these requirements. [n fact, we exceed them, really, in all cases. There were some -- there were some questions regarding the sidewalk issue, which I think I have addressed, and regarding some other traffic issues, which I want to address. Norm -- just in case he doesn't get here, I want to get this on the record. He did provide me with some information that I want to share with you. Two things: There were - there were some errors in the -- they're not substantive, but there were some elrors in the TIS. He's provided me with a corrected TIS. I have copies for you. The corrections are highlighted in red. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would hand that out to everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can defmitely hand them out. I'll need it electronically. I don't use paper, so... MR. MULHERE: Yep. Well, we assume we're going to be back, so between now and the next time, we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to sugges! you may have -- this may cause you to have to come back. We'll need time to digest it. I'm assuming some of that's in response to our meeting? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob,I'll want it electronically, too. MR. MULHERE: No problem. There were -- so you can see there's a new date on the front page in red. That's when this was updated. It was pointed out that on Page 4, the next page, the statement read, "The gateway mini-triangle development is an approved..." Well, that's not the case. It is proposed. So that's corrected. A minor correction on Page 5, very minor. And then a change on Page 13 to clarifr the statement that was confusing, a parenthetical statement there about proposed dual left directional median. It's proposed dual opposing single left directional median. So these were either confusion or corrections that were pointed out, and Norm did update the TIS. I mean, we can get into the specifics either shortly or hopefully when he arrives or, if it's not today, then when we come back. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: What time do you expect him to arrive? I mean, I'd rather not waste time asking you things that you're not the expeft on. MR. MULHERE: I don't - thank you. I don't expect him to arrive until - his meeting is at I l. It should last a half an hour so, you know, then he's got to get over here. He's at the county, but I'm not sure if it's on this campus or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob? Page 15 of67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Stan? COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Could somebody from staffexplainto me what an - what a proposed dual single -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can that wait till we get to the finish of the presentation? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's left-tum lanes going in both directions; opposed dual left turn lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Do you have a -- when we get -- are you done with your presentation? MR. MULIIERE: No, I have just a couple -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish up. And when we get to that, it would be nice if you had a graphic to show us what that means, because I can't understand what you just said, and that's probably why Stan -- MR. MULI{ERE: I'll give it a shot. I do have a graphic. I think it's shown on Norm's aerial. So there were some questions raised by the city. I'm not sure what Greg's title is there. If he's the civil -- city engineer. He basically runs the Public Works Department there. I wanted to just discuss a few of those. Item 1 was that there were - and this project was distributed to the city for their review at the same time as it was distributed 15 months ago to -- or 14 months ago to the county staff. There are concerns as to - and these comments are dated2l5ll8. There were concerns as to the density of the project and haffic impacts particularly upon U.S. 41. I think you-all have this, so I'm not going to read it. It basically says, the city urges the county to apply a conservative approach to traffic analysis, and we believe we have done exactly that. We use a capfure ratio that's very conservative. It's dictated by the counf, intemal capture. I'm going to read Norm's response. He says, these concerns are understandable. We cerLainly aren't going to introduce a different method of analyzing traffic that is inconsistent with the current county adopted methodologies, just as the city wouldn't expect somebody to use a different methodology than they have adopted. The transpoftation analysis performed for the project is consistent with those counff standards. I point out to you, by the way, this is in a TCEA, fansportation concurency exception area, so it's exempt from consistency. But that doesn't matter. We still don't trigger any LOS issues. The other item was related to the sidewalks. I think that concem was a very -- you know, a good question, and we have no intent of, in any way, interfering with or reducing the width that's required for the FDOT sidewalk with any of our activities. It will be separated. One question was regarding right turn lanes and a bus pull-ofi and we analyzed -- we will go through the FDOT permitting process. We haven't gone through that. We haven't met with them. Initial traffrc analysis shows that turn lanes are not warranted, and we've met with the Collier County transit stafi and we are providing a bus stop, and then there was the relocation of another bus stop, but those do not include pull-offs. It's a 5.3-acre site, and we can't give up that. They haven't been requested either, and they're not even warranted by the numbers. And, you know, I know, myself, I travel down U.S. 41, and I am stopped behind CAT buses because I'm driving nice and slow in the right lane, and I wait for CAT buses all the time, and so does everyone else. It's part of having a transit system. So I think - Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience with that presentation. It's a really significant projec! and I wanted to take the time to try to go over everl.thing, and now I would open it up to questions. And I do have experts here, plus my client is here to speak to you, anything, you know, that you might raise that you feel like you maybe want to hear from him on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just so the public knows, we will be taking a break at 10:30 for 15 minutes for the court reporter. We generally break at noon for one hour. Public speakers will be after the staffreport and after the presentation. During the meantime, the Planning Commission will be asking questions of the applicant and staffas needed. And then for the Planning Commission, we have three items we're reviewing today. First one is GMP, second is PUD, and the third is an LDC. Page 16 of 67 February 15,2018 We can just randomly ask questions about all of them, or we can go through those documents in that order and ask our questions from each document first. Does anybody on this board have a preference? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Each document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I agree with you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I haven't segregated my questions by subject matter. I've got them generally together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've mixed up the questions from the first document with the second and the third? You don't have them - COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've sorted them by topic. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, Iet's see if - okay. Well, we'll just ask questions then. Does -- who would like to start? Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bob, could you please tell me, this site will have no outdoor parking; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. There will be very minimal, but within the right-of-way, we've sized those intemal drives. We've sized those wide enough to have some parallel parking similar to Bayside, if you've been there. Im not sure if that's the name of it. There's a development in downtown Naples. It's right on the water as you head into the Naples on the right-hand side. It has a hotel and some restaurants and a couple of - that has -- it's the same thing, parallel parking along the right-of-way. We've sized those wide enough -- it will be minimal amount of the parking. Almost all of the parking will be in-structure parking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, you mentioned a car dealership or something, and that was going to be inside. MR. MULHERE: That will be, yes. No storage, no display outside. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So no parking outside with that? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have several. I'll finish up with the most significant ones. First of all, with regard to peak p.m. trips, I understand that the area is exempt from the usual considerations and limitations. Also, I see that even if it were not exempq you are within allowed capacity. I am concerned, though -- and I'm not really sure anything can be done about it, but I want to express my concem anyway, tlrat another 875 peak p.m. trips is going to really add traffic to the two streets in question. And what opportunities does that leave for subsequent developments given that the mini-triangle is to be the primary catalyst, if you will, for much more to come? And I note that there are no plans in place for widening either of those streets, which I think is a shame. I'm not sure if this is a question or a comment, but -- MR. MULHERE: No, it's -- I mean, I'll respond in a couple of ways. The -- because this is in a TCEA beyond just our property, quite a bit of the property here within the larger triangle, that's -- those have been deemed to be constrained, that improvements such as widening the roadway are cost prohibitive. They're not going to happen. So some level of congestion is going to be acceptable. The subsequent developments that come in here, you know, they all have right now a number of trips that they either are generating or could be generating under the existing zoning by right never coming before any public hearing body, and that's pretty substantial. And so that's evaluated and measured. You know, it's interesting because there are locations where there are considerations right now being studied potentially for reducing arterial roadway, U.S. 41 in the City of Naples just east of you know, Fifth Avenue where you turn sharp right to head north. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but that's one of the considerations is to take that down to four lanes and put some parking there and slow the traffic down. That PagelT of67 February 15,2018 will reduce capacity. It will slow traffrc. We're not proposing that. Obviously, I don't think the State would like that in this location. These both have pretty high -- pretty easy flow right now. There used to be a fast-food restaurant and a bunch of other things on some of these properties, so... So I guess my response is that there's competing interests here, and on the one hand you have a CRA that's invested ad valorem tax dollars, a tax increment, into improving this area by creating a stormwater pond, by making roadway improvements, and you know they've done the same thing along Bayshore, with the intent being to see this area improved and to see this area generate new development, new economic investment. And so that interest competes with the interest of, hey, that's going to require some additional trips on the roadway. We're going to create some traffrc. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't expect that you would have a solution to the problem -- MR. MULFDRE: I don't. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- but I wanted to express a concern because the objective here on the part of the county, I believe, is to, in effect, make this part of East Naples, the premiere -- the premiere city, if you will, or focal point for activities in the unincorporated county. Well, my next question had to do with the minimum, and I appreciate you having raised the proposed number from 50 dwelling units to 100. I would like to see even more than that because some of my concerns when I get to the subject of allowable commercial uses, as a practical matter, I think go away or at least are less to be feared if there is more residential occupancy in that area. And I, for one, would like to see 150 dwelling units as a minimum. My next -- my next concem, I had communications with representatives of Olde Naples Association, which is the large neighborhood association representing the residential part of the Olde Naples area, the downtown area included. And their concern -- and, again, Bob, this may not be anything that you can do. Well, it isn't anything you can do about it, but it needs to be expressed because these concerns were expressed to me, and I know there are people watching TV now from Naples who would like to see how my question is answered, and that has to do with this: Granted, the actual height of the buildings will be lower than the communications tower that's there. That's a good thing. But the potential exposure for disaster is much larger. A plane hits the tower; obviously, there could be terrible, terrible mass casualty things happening. But if a plane hits an occupied building, it could be in an order of magnitude of huge multiples of casualties. And my fear is is that the Naples Airport Authority, in order to, perhaps, address that concem, might be seeking to route landings and takeoffs more over the area of Olde Naples on the west, and that's a very real concern that's been expressed to me by the residents of Olde Naples. So my question to you really is, in your discussions -- and I've seen the FAA letter, and I've seen the Naples Airport Authority letter, and there are no hazards that are going to cause them to take action against this development. I understand and appreciate that. But I want to ask you if in the course of your discussions with those authorities any statements were made that could reasonably be interpreted as a sign or signal on their part that they're going to move airport, the landing and takeofftraffic, over toward the west. MR. MULHERE: So I wasn't privilege to -- I think Mr. Starkey would come up and speak to that issue relative to the FAA. Some folks on my staffwho are airport experts helped to initiate the application and foster the application through the process. I was at several meetings with the Naples Airport Authority, and in those meetings I never heard any discussion about this project which is not within the flight patterns, changing in any way the nature of how the airport operates and how planes will land there. As another observation, you know, it is a larger structure than the towers, but it's also much more visible than the towers, which has all of the requirements for lighting and FAA protection and safety mechanisms associated wittr it. So just as a separate issue, not directly related to what you asked. I never heard anything. I don't know if you want to say any,thing. No? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, that answers my question. Now, to the one that gives me greatest amount of heartburn, if you will, and that has to do with the Page 18 of67 February 15,2018 other allowable commercial uses. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And in our discussions yesterday on the phone, Bob, you used the expression "high-end first class," which, I think, certainly capfures your client's intentions, which I take as being expressed in good faith and sincere. We share those intentions, I believe, on the county side of the table wanting this area to be the very best it can be and to achieve the goal of being a catalyst and of being a point of attraction for other developments and something that will really improve that very important part of unincorporated Collier County and also significant importance to the residents of the City of Naples, because we're very close neighbors, and it will almost have a feel like tle same downtown area of flow, which can be a very good thing, but it also brings more people into the mix who are concerned about taking steps to assure that we achieve high-end first-class. And how is that to be accomplished? That's the challenge. One thing we can do - and we talked about this - is go through each and every proposed use and see if we can't narrow or impose qualitative limits of some kind on those uses. And at the end of the day, that may be the only way we can get to where we want to get. I had hoped -- because I understand the importance on your part and on the part of your clients of having flexibility, but I don't want to offload all of the risk of, Iet's say, a downtum on the economy and then what might happen or have to happen with respect to who the tenants or the occupants are of your area as a result of an unforeseen downtum. I think the risks should be shared, and one way of sharing it is, frankly, to narrow the scope of allowable commercial uses to something that even in the worst-case scenario we can expect, shall we say, high-quality type of commercial uses as opposed to -- and I'm not going to mention any names, for example, but I think we all know the kinds ofthings I'm talking about that we would hate to see come in. So I struggled for language. You know, you had used the expression high-end first-class, which I liked, but we both agreed in our telephone conversation that that's not necessarily capable of precise definition or what exactly -- that's in the eyes of the beholder. So I'm willing to either talk about limiting language that expresses the imagination of your client and the imagination of the people planning and managing and governing the County of Collier as to what they're trying to do here and to protect the county from absorbing all the risk of a downturn in the market. MR. MULHERE: So, a couple of, I think, thoughts in response. And, you know, yeah, about 3 o'clock last night I was thinking about this, your question on this, and there's a difference between regulatory - and I know you appreciate this. I mean, I'm just -- there's a difference between how you structure something from a regulatory perspective and then what is the intent. You know, some -- like, for example, all the zoning districts have - in the LDC have a purpose and intent section. And it's probably more difficult to use a purpose and intent section to -- you know, to drive some sort of regulatory restrictions. You really want to go sort of beyond that, I think. And so the next step is you list uses or you have, you know, hours of operation or you have other specific restrictions that drive that purpose and intent. I think we did prepare what I call the vision, purpose, and intent. I think that can be used as a means of moving down the life of this project measuring, is this project consistent with the vision, purpose, and intent. I think that can be done, but it's not specific. And, again, it is in the eyes of the beholder. COMMISSIONER FRYER: True. And I'm not sure -- MR. MULHERE: I prepared - COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that as precatory language it would really have the effect of limiting -- MR. MULHERE: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- expression of the uses. Now, you provided me with a copy of the desired uses, which I think is a step in the right direction, and I believe that can be circulated to the Planning Commission. MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe it would be easier for us if we were to say that rather than all Page 19 of67 February 15,2018 the uses in Cl through C4 and having to go through : I know there's 96 n C3 because we had that recently. MR. MULIIERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rather than going through that, perhaps we would go through the tailored-down list that you've provided - MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and go at each one of those items. I will say, though, that I'm going to -- I'm going to have the same kinds of objections to the catch-all language - MR. MULIIERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- the so-called 99 codes - MR. MULIIERE: I got it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and would like to see those things taken out. MR. MULHERE: I have them all. Let me just respond in one other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, one question. Are you asking for all the uses of C3 andC4? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're only looking at the uses that you have in your document that you're requesting under principal uses, which is IB I and 2 and 3. MR. MULffiRE: What I was going to say was we've already pared this down quite a bit. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULI{ERE: I'm not suggesting there aren't some uses here that we don't anticipate a market for or that in someone's perspective -- from someone's perspective there may not be a use here that's objectionable. And I brought a list. It's not that long. I mean, it's certainly up to the Planning Commission. I'm very huppy to look at those uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My hope would be that rather than start with the uses that are permitted under current zoning, current commercial zonitg, we agree that the uses will include -- well, will be limited to the ones on the list you've provided as we continue to negotiate to pare that down even fuither -- MR. MULffiRE: And they are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- so that things that are not specified are not permissible. MR. MULFDRE: And that's the way it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Except for the 99s where it "or anything that's soft of like this." MR. MULIIERE: Yes. But even any one of these codes -- so let me just give you an example, if I could, for just one minute. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why don't we hand it out to the Planning Commission. MR. MULffiRE: I didn't bring enough copies to hand it out, so I was going to put it on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I provided some. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's fine. I'm just a little confused, though. We are not - they are not asking forthe C3 and C4 uses. They're asking for a very specific list of uses. And is that the list we're dealing with? Because there's no sense of going into all the C3 andC4 when you're not even asking for those. So is this list pared down to just what's in the document in front of us today, which is all you're asking for, and then going to pare that down further? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think they want the continued overlay uses. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Bob, show me where that says that. MR. MULIIERE: No, no, not the uses. No, we're limited to these uses. The overlay is for development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're -- MR. MULffiRE: We are limited to the uses here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that clarified in the ordinance? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. Heidi, do you want to opine? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: It's on Exhibit A first page. There's -- all the uses that they're specifically Page 20 of 67 February 15,2018 asking for are listed there, but there are ranges. So I thought you were getting at uses that are within the ranges that you're objecting to -- MR. MULHERE: He is. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: - but it sounds like we're looking at a much broader picture they're not asking for. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I want to -- I want to shift the presumption from -- and I'm thinking of the 99 uses in the SIC code, the ones that end in - the four digits that end in 99, andyou'll see this when it's handed out. These are the uses that they're asking for that they're proposing already some to be tailored back, and in many cases I think that's very much a step in the right direction. But I think if we can look at this and remove the catch-all provision so that we know exactly what the uses are that are going to be permitted, I think we're in better shape than where we are now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was -- from what you were saying, though, it sounded like you were going to start with the C3 and C4 uses. That's not what they're asking for. So as long as we're paring down what you've already requested and we're looking at those, I think that's a good starting point. There's no sense of going into something you're not even asking for. MR. MULI{ERE: No. We are limited to the - very limited to expressly those uses and those limitations in the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I misunderstood somewhat because of your wanting to retain all the uses under the mixed use. And I looked pretty carefully at this language, and I didn't find - maybe it was there, but I didn't see a clear statement that that's not being asked for. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way the code's written, if it's not allowed, it's prohibited. What this zoning would do is allow specifically the uses they're asking for in this document, and the other use is not prohibited once this is done. And -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Except for the catch-alls that we're going to talk about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The catch-alls are listed. So if we change the catch-alls, then the changeswouldnotbeallowedanymore. ButrightnowthoseTggs-llke7999,5999,thereareafewofthem that are catch-alls. And I agree with you, those are the ones that have got all kinds of uses to them. I've pulled the code out and looked at every single one of them. Some of them, they are pretty dramatic. And it's a good thing we're going through this exercise. But we're not starting, though, at C3 and C4. They've already dismissed that as the overall picture. They're going down just what's in this document. Is that right or wrong, Bob? MR. MULHERE: So just clearly -- I want to put on the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: All right. MR. MULI{ERE: -- the only uses that we're asking for are those uses expressly identified in this document. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well - then the only thing I'm going to say is - and I read this stuff pretty clearly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there -- is it clear in the proposed ordinance and the exhibits that the overlay uses that are -- that any overlay uses that are permitted in the overlay but not expressed here are not permitted? MS. ASI{ION-CICKO: Yeah. The uses that are allowed - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Your mike's not picking up. There. Now it is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Too much high tech for me. The uses that are permitted are the uses that are listed with the SIC code reference after it; however, you do need to look at the SIC codes because sometimes it can pull in uses that you might not have realized. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, and that's the 99s, okay. So you're satisfied - MS. ASIilON-CICKO: Like, this is the SIC codes forthis case. I mean, it's a lot of pages. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was going to ask that you disconnect yourself from all the mixed uses in the overlay. Page?l of 67 February 15,2018 MR. MULI{ERE: We are only asking for these uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So I have the list. It's not -- I mean, I see that Heidi has about 50 pages there. I printed every single use. I didn't print every single sub-use, but I did print all of the 99 uses. So I think we could -- if we spend a few minutes, we could probably go through this pretly quickly. My list is very similar to your list, if not the same. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULI{ERE: I don't know how you want to do that, Mr. Chairman. I mean, if you want to do it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys - just start from the beginning of the list. Let's see if we can get through this part of it. Well, we're going to take a break in -- you know what let's take a break now before we start on this list so we're not intemrpting the middle of it, and we'll come back at 20 minutes to I l; 10:40. (A brief recess was had.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, it's 10:40. We'll resume the meeting. And, Ray, thank you for turning the microphone on. And we left offwith a discussion by M.. Mulhere and Mr. Fryer concerning the SIC codes and the list that was passed out earlier. And, Bob - by the way, when this is all finished, again, could you provide electronic copies of this list? Because it's not something I will keep. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. And I'll let you two guys go to wherever you were going to go. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So I've got the PUD document in my hands here, and then I've got a list that I've prepared, which I'm sure is similar to the list that Mr. Fryer prepared. But if there's any discrepancies we can certainly talk about those. And I think -- but you can correct me. I think the easiest way is to go down this list of uses. If there's something that's objectionable and it's allowed by the PIID, we can have that discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Let's just start working our way down. Ned, is that okay with you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, absolutely. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So the first list of SIC codes that's allowed in the PUD is 531 1 through 5399. Those uses are right here: Department stores, variety stores, miscellaneous, general merchandise stores. You know, if I can use an example, Nordstrom's Raclg Neiman Marcus. I think that was on your list. It would not be - and the way things are going, as far as I can tell, we're not going to see a whole lot of very large brick and mortar retail. You are going to see, potentially, some of these smaller specialty type stores that still seem to be surviving suffrciently. So I wouldn't think those would be objectionable, but I'll defer to your comments. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, one concem I would have is the breadth of 5399. MR. MULI{ERE: Let me take a look. MS. ASIIION-CICKO: Bob, would you like me to give you the SIC code page so you can put it up? MR. MULI{ERE: I think we might have them here. I'm looking, because I - I do not have all the -- yeah, I guess so. Yes, thank you. I must have not thought it was very broad. Okay. Oh, yeah. That's why. I didn't put it up because -- I'm sorry. This is the extent of 5399, which is catalog showrooms; country general stores retail. Don't think we'll have one of those there; general merchandise stores retail; and general stores retail. So I didn't really see that those were objectionable. That's not one of the larger catch-alls. It's pretly limited. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULFIERE: So ifwe -- moving along, andthe next is - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a long list. So to expedite il why don't we just move by group. And if someone has a concern, we'll just speak out, and then we'll go from there. MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather get - otherwise, we're going to be here for hours going over this. Page22 of 67 February 15,2018 MR. MULFDRE: No, I got it. So 5411 through 5499 is this group right here. We do see and have had conversations with several entities that would potentially bring in 4 you know, l5- to 25,000-square-foot specialty kind of retailer. There are examples out there; Wholefoods, Amazon is doing this kind of stuff. There are -- so there are examples of that. Whether it happens or not, I don't know, but we don't want to preclude it from happening. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have a problem with that. MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. The next one is 5611 through 6599. I mean, you know, these SIC codes are a little bit antiquated in the way that they read men's and boys' clothing. I don't think you're going to see any'thing that only specializes in men's and boys' clothing. You might have a clothing store that has men's and boys'clothing and ladies clothing and men's, you know, so I think -- a shoe store, you could have an upscale, you know, shoe store. Again, I don't think there's anything objectionable there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess it's clear that accessory stores -- it's implied that those are clothing accessories. MR. MULFDRE: Yes, because it falls under that SIC code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULIIERE: And then the next groupingis 5712, and we allow -- we allow in our PUD 5712 through 5736, so you have musical instrument stores. I don't think you're going to see too many recorded and prerecorded tape stores coming in -- but computer and computer software, consumer electronics, you could see, you know, a high-end -- I mean, it's possible to have one of those high-end kind of electronics stores. The name of it is escaping me now, but there are several. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob, may I ask a question that's related to this and would help allay my concems to a degree? You mentioned that there aren't going to be any outdoor uses. MR. MULHERE: Otherthan dining. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULFIRE: You know, so restaurant might have - will. We will have some outdoor seating. It's Florida. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But other than dining uses -- MR. MULHERE: You're talking about storage? No. No outdoor storage. We didn't ask forthat. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No retail outdoor? MR. MULI{ERE: I mean, they may put a rack out for a special sidewalk sale or something, but that's typical. You know, you get a special permit for that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We will need to clean the PUD up, because there is outdoor storage ability without the prohibition, and there is language in there for temporary storage of merchandise. MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm talking about; sidewalk sales and things like tha! yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I think they can, under the way the language is written, and I think maybe this is what they're intending, is, like, they could put an automobile out like they do at Mercato. MR. MULHERE: Special event. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But there also is an ability -- because in C4 automobile sales does allow for outdoor storage, so we want to seal that so that they don't do outdoor storage. So we can address that in the PUD. MR. MULHERE: fught. I don't have a problem with that. I thought we already addressed iq but I don't have a problem if it needs to be clarified. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The more -- I can achieve comfort that when we drive by this development it's going to look, you know, essentially or close to some of the drawings of the images that you've offered, the glass stufl so that you really don't know what's going on inside. MR. MULFDRE: Yes. I got it. And we don't think that the residents or guests would want to see, you know, a lot of that kind of stuffeither. So, for example, we have -- on the new car dealership we have limited to an interior showroom display and so - but we could clarifu that. I don't have a problem with that. I mean, we can make sure that it's understood what our intent is, which that is our intent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, yeah. So a broad -- a broader prohibitions against outdoor Page 23 of 67 February 15,2018 activities other than as specified? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm making a note right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. I'm sorry I intemrpted you. MR. MULHERE: No, that's okay. I've got to make a note or I -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. MULHERE: So moving along. The question was that we're not talking about special events, and I just assured, no, we're talking about sort of a permanent outdoor storage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Occasional events. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, they're regulated. It's regulated. There's a whole section of the code that regulates it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MULFDRE: Okay. The next grouping is 5912 through 5999, and that includes -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's a proprietary store? MR. MULHERE: I don'tknow, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Neither do I. MR. MULHERE: So we only asked for 5912,5921r. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you'll put language in there limiting it to - as associated with grocery stores? MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah. The liquor store? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We don't need a free-standing liquor store. If we need to clariff that to make sure that we say liquor store associated with a, you know, grocery store, we can do that. It would be an accessory use. I don't know if we even have to say that. Ray, Publix comes in for an accessory liquor store, that's permitted kind of by righg isn't it? It's not a free-standing liquor store. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Forthe record, Ray Bellows. Any primary use that has accessory package store, that would have to be qualified. The zoning district allows for the package store. MR. MULFIERE: Okay. So we'll do that. We'll make that change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the 59s? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you may have to help me where you got this from. Under the 5912,5921, where does 5932 come up in your list? MR. MULHERE: It's not. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So you're not asking for that? MR. MULHERE: Which is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Third one down. MR. MULIDRE: That's used merchandise stores? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Now, what list - keep going to the top; 5932. I can't see the top. Could you pull it down. There you go. MR. MULHERE: Oh,I'm sorry,. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5932 doesn't seem to be -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not on the exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why are we - why is it - MR. MULHERE: I'm not talking about that. No, we were talking about liquor stores. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: I know that. Isn't this - the SIC codes we're going over now, isn't this supposed to be the list that you're asking for or not? MR. MULHERE: No. What I'm doing - let me clarifu. What I'm doing is I am limiting my discussion only to those uses we're asking for, but this is the full list here. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why did we have - why'd you give us the full list? MR. MULHERE: Okav. We can -- Page 24 of 67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why don't we just focus on what you're asking for and save some time? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I'm trying to do. Im not going over every list. I'm only going over the ones we asked for. I'm only -- CFIAIRMAN STRAN: How are we supposed to know by this list which ones you're asking for? MR. MULHERE: I'm going to tell you. I've got the numbers right here in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. I knowthat but MR. MULIIERE: I don't have any other way to do it unless you want to use Mr. Fryer's list, which is fine by me. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: All I'm suggesting is if you're only asking for 5912, 5921,5941through 48, and 5992-99, those should be the only ones on this list, because when this list gets done, isn't this the list that you're adopting for the PUD? I mean, based on the ranges, but I mean, this is a list - MR. MULI{ERE: We're only going to include those uses that you agree we should include. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULI{ERE: But, looh I wasn't as efficient as you would have been. I simply downloaded the entire Iisl and I didn't then, go in and delete the uses we're not asking for - COMMISSIONER FRYER: But as the Chairman said - MR. MULI{ERE: - at6:45lastnight. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- you've got5949, and then you're saying, tailor okay, but 5949 is not on your - in the exhibit. MR. MULI{ERE: Correct. I can just let you know -- I got it right here. So, in the 59s, we've asked for 5912; that's drugstore. We've asked for 5921;that is the liquor store. We've agreed to limit that to only accessory. And we're asking for 5941 through 5948, so let's go to that; 5941 through 5948. Those are sporting goods stores, bookstores, stationery stores, jewelry stores. None of those should be objectionable, I wouldn't think, correct? So moving on. We've also asked for 5992 through 5999. So 5992 is floris! tobacco stores, news, optical stores, and then you've got your miscellaneous. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ninety-three's out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're asking for them. It's 5992range to -- COMMISSIONERFRYER: It says no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on here, yeah, but, I mean, in the PUD they're asking for it. MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah. We just asked for the range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're out of the range. You're going to except out 5993? I think that's what Ned's -- MR. MULI{ERE: Well, I mean, you could have a cigar store. Is there -- you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's tle "no" mean? Who put that ttrere? MR. MULHERE: I don't see -- I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On yours - okay. Maybe if we all would use the page that you passed out. The one that you passed out has the word "no." MR. MULHERE: Oh, that would have been Mr. Fryer probably put that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no, no, I didn't. I absolutely did not. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. The author -- who's the author of this document? Ned. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NO? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, someone put "no" on here. I didn't. It just came typed. MR. MULI{ERE: It's not my document. MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner Fryer, I believe that was yours. I believe that was the one I distributed, which was given -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I forwarded it to you from Bob or, actually, it was from Mr. Starkey. MR. MULffiRE: This is my list right here. Page 25 of 67 February 15,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: This was from Mr. Starkey. MR. STARKEY: I sent it to you. MR. MULIIERE: Oh, you had those on there. Okay. I didn't know that that was distributed. That answers that question. CH{IRMAN STRAN: It is now, so... MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. Let's just - if you don't care, we'll take it out. I had no idea that that was -- so we're saying that the tobacco can come out, right? Okay. Shall we move on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm anxious to. MR. MULFDRE: SIC Code 7933, we only ask for those uses, and you can see on this one I did only add the uses that we asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the one you passed out said, okay, new boutique bowling dash F and B centric. What does that mean? MR. MULHERE: Does anyone mind if we retain -- does anyone mind if - I'm a little confused and frustrated because I didn't know that you-all had something that has nos and yeses on it. I'm, you know - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just was passed out while you were standing there, Bob. That's the problem. MR. MULIIERE: I'm using my list I was prepared to go over. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have nine copies of your list or six or - MR. MULHERE: No. I thought we'd put it on the visualizer. So anyway tobacco -- excuse me, 59 -- I'm looking for it. Oh, yeah, 5993, tobacco stores. We may want to have, for example, an upscale cigar shop like Burn or something like that that's up in the Mercato. We don't want to eliminate that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why you would. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Moving on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to clarif, who wrote the word "no." CHAIRMAN STRAN: I think Jerry did when he - Jerry Starkey. MR. STARKEY: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the -- if you're going to speak, Jerry, unfortunately you've got to come up to the mike. So, Bob, can you answer that question. MR. MULHERE: I'll do it. Yeah. These notes were added to the list by Mr. Starkey, which he sent to me, maybe copied you. I didn't even look at this because I was busy working on my own list until into the evening last night. So -- because I intended to go over this list just like this. I thought it was the most efficient way to do it. Go over the list, only discuss the ones that are in the PUD, and move through it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we're to ignore the word "no," for instance, in the 5980. MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah, those were -- I guess those were just his own notes. I didn't - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, they're not asking for the 5980s at all, so they don't get any of those anyway. They're not in the PUD. MR. MULI{ERE: Correct. I'm only focusing on the ones we're asking for. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think you might want to disregard the handout and just go from what he's presenting on the visualizer. MR. MULHERE: It would be easier. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's fine. We just don't have a copy of it;that's all. MR. MULHERE: We can make copies, or we can come back prepared with copies. I'd just as soon we use the visualizer. Everyone can see that. Everyone in the public can see that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I still want to know what a proprietary store is, but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's a store that someone owns. MR. MULHERE: I don't know. I'm going to have to look that up and report back to you. So as I was saying, our PUD in the 7900 SIC code is limited to bowling centers, physical fitness facilities, and7999 is a catchall. There are many uses listed under that. We are only asking for -- and there may be some discussion on this. We are only asking for yoga instruction or some similar kind of exercise facility that would fall under that. Page26 of 67 February 15,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: That bullet is meant to be a subset or a modifier -- MR. MULI{ERE: It is a modifier. It's in the PUD that way, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULI{ERE: And so -- and bicycle rental. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Bob, I take exception to the indoor shooting range. All that's going to do is encourage people to travel on our streets with guns to get to and from this place. And, honestly, I'm not against the Second Amendment at all, but I don't think we need people running up and down six-lane arterials with guns, so... MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. Done. And we're all extremely sensitive to that, too, on a day like this, so, yeah. Moving on. 611 1, the 6000 range. I'm looking for what's permitted. Okay. Here we go. Those are personal and financial services. So you can see what those are: Credit agencies, credit, banks, those kinds of things. Again, I wouldn't think that any of that - COMMISSIONER FRYER: What about payday loans? MR. MULI{ERE: Which item is that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be underthe 99. MR. MULIIERE: We - let me just look for a minute. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One that had the banks on it. It's not on the screen. MR. MULHERE: 6399? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I can't see it because it's offthe screen. MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. Hold on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 6 I 59. MR. MULHERE: 6159, miscellaneous business credit institutions. I mean, we don't -- we're not going to have payday loans, like a check cashing place? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MULFDRE: We don't need that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why don't you just limit it to banks and investment managers like Jerry's document said, that we shouldn't have gotten. MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. I got it. Okay. So the next one is the 6200s. Those are security brokers and dealers, commodity contract brokers. These are really all professional offrce, these uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 6200's not on the screen. There we go. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I'm looking down here. I can see it and you can't. I apologize. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Again, those are all professional office uses. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's a flotation company? MR. MULHERE: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I got a personal flotation device, but I doubt if I'd buy it there. MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. I don't think. I guess it probably has something to do with loans. 6300 is insurance-related activities, title insurance, pension, health, insurance carriers, accidental health insurance. I mean, they're all kind of carried by different providers. It's office use. 6400 is insurance agents and brokers. Why that's different from above, I don't know. Garment press -- oh,6411. So I wouldn't think there would be any problem. That's all professional office type uses and then, ['m sorry, going to the 7200s, the PUD allows three uses, 7212 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: 7212, garment pressing? MR. MULIfiRE: That's what I'm getting at. I'm on that. The PUD allows three uses: 7212,7231, and1241. Those are listed right here. This is a dry cleaner. That is what that is. It is not - it is limited -- you're an agent of a laundry or dry cleaner. In other words, you've got - you know that little dry cleaners that we see all over town? That's what that is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it that, or is it the place where those little dry cleaners send the Page27 of67 February 15,2018 clothes on a larger scale? MR. MULIIERE: Well, my intent was for this to allow a dry cleaner. I'll check that one. I'll make a note and make sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULI{ERE: Yep. I think that's accurate, that it is a dry cleaner, but I will check and make sure when we come back. The other two are, you know, beauty salon and barbershop. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How are we creating a list for ourselves when this comes back on consent? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, first of all, it may not be just consent it will need to come back for. And I'm probably going to suggest that the applicant, if they would so agree -- MR. MULI{ERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- by the time we get done today, if more clarity is needed than we normally see on consent, why don't we wrap both the consent and a final reading of this up in the next meeting, if you-all see that as a way to maybe solve some of the issues that are coming up. So that would solve it. By then we'd have a list that Bob would refine based on the info we're giving him today. MR. MULHERE,: Yes. Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have anlthing to check it against. MR. M[ILI{ERE: Well, I mean, I'm going to refine -- I'll refine the PUD, and I'll provide a refured list of SIC code numbers. CTIAIRMAN STRAN: And then we have them in time to review them against the next meeting. Even if we don't discuss them today, I think we'll see the hot buttons that might have concemed us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So the next group is 7300. Those are all typical office uses. In today's day and age, I couldn't imagine there would be any issue with those. Moving on -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Retrieval, is that like computer servers, databases? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's using computers to retrieve information. Yeah. It should all be out of an office with a bank of computers. Moving on, 801I is doctors and offices and clinics. And let me move that down. Sorry. Dentists, various chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists. I mean, we have 60,000 square feet of office. If we're going to fill any of that, we certainly need to have doctors' offices. Typically those laboratories are -- these days many of times they are accessory to the doctor's office. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, Bob. Just curiosity, why are they so specific on things like chiropractors and optometrists, and they don't mention ophthalmologists and urologists and whatever? MR. MULHERE: That's a good question. I don't know why. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why don't they just say doctors? MR. MULI{ERE: Well, I agree, or medical doctors or specialty doctors. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, medical, yeah. MR. MULI{ERE: I mean, just as an observation, we have adopted - I don't know how long, Mark, this SIC code. A longtime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an '87 version, and if you look at NAICS, you'll see it's broken down completely differently. And we have not yet adopted the new system. MR. MULI{ERE: And that's what I was -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does this mean you can't put a urologist ofhce in there? MR. MULI{ERE: No, you can, because Ray will let you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh. I'll tell Dr. Guttman. Thank you. MR. MULI{ERE: Here's one that may be objectionable. I don't know. 8111; 811l,legal services. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Depends on what attomeys you're putting in there, Bob. I think -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. 8600 series is business associations, professional membership organizations, labor union. We don't have to worry about that, I don't think, down here. Page 28 of 67 February 15, 2018 Civic, social, and fratemal associations, political organizations, religious organizations, membership organizations. Again, you know, whatever of those uses comes forward, it's going to be fully within an enclosed multi-story building. It's going to look like an office; it's going to act like an office. So, I don't even -- let me tell you what we asked for and make sure, because I don't know that we asked for all of those. Let's see. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, you did. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So if there's something objectionable, just -- we can talk about it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there an overriding ordinance that deals with sexual activities? MR. MULIIERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because sometimes I see that it's actually called out. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: SOB ordinance. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Ray Bellows. Collier County has, as part of adopted regulations, an ordinance dealing with sexually oriented businesses, and it has locational standards. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It has locational standards. Would this location fall within those standards? MR. MULI{ERE: We'd have to check. But if the PUD doesn't allow for the use, then it doesn't allow for the use either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, but, I mean, you've got some -- you've got some fairly broad uses that are not so qualified. Maybe we should put in that the prohibition about sexually, whatever the expression is. MR. MULIIERE: Well, there's a definition in the sexually oriented. The SOB ordinance, as it's affectionately referred to as, there is a definition. I would defer to the County Attomey, but we certainly could -- we don't mind putting in a prohibition or limitation. You know, there are constitutional issues here, so I don't want to get into that. Ive got to defer to the lawyers on that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd just like to know what the language is. MS. ASHION-CICKO: We have prohibited it in the past. We can add a prohibition for -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can't hear you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We can add a prohibition for sexually oriented businesses as defined in our ordinances. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was broader than tha! as I recall. It was a two-pronged test that we've actually put in other developments. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just for no sexually oriented sales and -- MS. ASIIION-CICKO: No. We just did a reference to sexually oriented business ordinance. That's how we handled the U.S. 41 that just went through. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. MULI{ERE: I got it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that will modiff and limit everything. MR. MULIIERE: Yeah. Yes, I think that's a broad limitation. I'll figure out where to put i! but it's a broad limitation. It covers everything. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Okay. MR. MULI{ERE: 8699, this is the list of the kinds of uses: Art councils, athletic associations, but they're all office uses. And there's a few more here: Humane societlz, poetry associations. That must be a big one. They're all - they're all office uses. And then you get into 87,000 (sic) series, which are also predominantly offices, but I'll just go over those real quick. We asked for 8711 through 8748 and, for some reason, I don't have 8748. But engineering services, architecfural services, surveying services, accounting. All offices. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's after 8742, second line down, halfway across. MR. MULHERE: Oh, that didn't get -- there we go: Public relations services and facilities support management, and then there's building consulting services not elsewhere classified. Everywhere else there's a 9 in the numbering system for these not elsewhere classified. For some reason this one has an 8 in it. Page 29 of 67 February 15,2018 But you can see what it is: Counseling - city planners. You know, you've got to have room for them; traffi c consultants. So that is the list. And I've made notes for what I believe is objectionable, and we'll deal with those and bring back, and I'll get that to you in advance of the next meeting, whenever that's scheduled. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I think that gets us through the use list that, Ned, you had brought up as part ofyour questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Do you want to continue on with whatever else you have? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have exhausted my questions. I've exhausted myself. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I might as well start offthen. When we met the other day, I told you what my oveniding concern was, and that's when this project started - and I know we're not judging this based on the RFP or the agreement, but back then I saw the renderings that you have attached to your documents here. And the attitude I saw from people that saw that thought wow, what a great way to - what an entry component to the City of Naples and a way to get a gateway into a more higher end product and style. And I still believe this product will do that, and I have the utmost faith in your client that they can get that done. But as they fear changes in the economy and other things that could happen, they want flexibility in case what they intend to do can't work. God forbid, say they have to sell it ofi then we're stuck with whatever's left in this document and who interprets it. And right now the document says -- or you're suggesting changes to go to 100 units that could be as small as 500 square feet and a 30,000 piece of commercial. That really means an apartment complex with a bowling alley, and that is not what was provided originally or in this packet today as what you're trying to build there. I cerlainly would suggest, that's not entry to the City ofNaples. I also would suggest it's not enough of a catalyst to really get much out of the gateway triangle different than what we have today, just newer stuff but of the same composition. So I am not convinced, even after our discussion on Tuesday, with the one thing you came back and changed, and we're not there. MR. MULHERE: Well, I changed a few other things. I have this handout with the changes highlighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we ought to walk through those to see if it helps, because I'm troubled by what I've seen, and I don't know if it's really consistent with what we had intended, and it seems to be a substantial change from that. MR. MULHERE: I don't think I have enough. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's a good thing Mr. Schmitt's not here. MR. MLILI{ERE: And I don't have one to put on the visualizer, so I'm just waiting on a copy. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If you can start, they can bring me one in a minute. MR. MULHERE: So that -- that document has a number of changes. I read the vision, purpose, and intent, and we prepared that based on the meetings ttrat we had in order to establish a -- you know, a vision for this that is consistent with the graphic exhibits that you see and what our intent is. A couple of other things that were noted. We use the term in - at the bottom of that first page -- we use the term "transient lodging" because we allow hotels - or hotel and other transient lodging uses. And it was pointed out that there really was no definition of what exactly is meant by transient lodging. And I prepared this language here that says, the term "transient lodging" includes hotels and interval ownership or vacation rental suites Any such transient lodging shall include the following operational characteristics or limitations: Lodging accommodations normally on a daily or weekly rate to the general public. He's making copies -- he's trying to get copies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I know there's not enough copies. MR. MULHERE: We can wait. Page 30 of67 February 15,2018 CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think your using the overhead is fine, and we'll start with that. But this will be something that will probably have to be finished up when we come back on this, so... MR. MLILHERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You were on the second. MR. MULFIRE: Yeah. It said general public or integral (sic) owners and provision for -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You pulled some of that out of statute, didn't you? Thafs what it looks like. MR. MULHERE: It came out of the definition in the LDC. There's actually some language in the LDC. That's why I took it. And check-in and housekeeping services as well as other amenities such as dining facilities, meeting rooms, or recreational facilities. So I mean, the idea is ttrat it's not -- transient lodging is not permanent lodging. And, unfortunately, the way that the county code deals wittr it -- I shouldn't say unfortunately. The way the county code deals with it is, you kind of have to back into what that definition is. If you look at the definition of a dwelling unit, that's identified - in that definition it says, units that are rented for periods of less than one week or deemed to be transient lodging. It doesn't have a definition of transient lodging, but when you go there, you see that language. That's why I used the rental - daily or weekly rental periods. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There's where we added the 100 multifamily residential units. And I want -- I did want to go over this a little bit. Several people raised concem about the unrestricted allowance -- and it was unrestricted when we submitted in the way that we provided the language -- relative to dwelling units that would be less than 700 square feet. And so I've inserted some language here that says, the minimum unit size is 700 square feet for residential dwelling units except that up to 20 percent may be between 699 and 500 square feet. So there is now a limit on the number that could be less than 700 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAN: While you're on that page, I want to talk about this height. I'm not against it or anything. I'm trying to make sure it's accurate. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 160 feet NGVD, but the airport said you could be 160 above their base; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And their base is eight. MR. MULHERE: They said mean sea level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could be 160 feet above mean sea level. MR. MULHERE: One hundred sixty-eight feet above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was lowest - the facilities at the airport. There was some language in the Naples Airport Authority. MR. MULI{ERE: No. What they said was 168 feet above mean sea level, and at that location mean sea level is eight feet. The airport is eight feet. Do you want to talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if the airport's eight fee! and you want to - and that's eight feet NGVD, and you want to go to 160 feet NGVD, what's your building height going to end up at? MR. MULFIERE: Well, that's what we discussed before. Perhaps the NGVD needs to be limited to the actual height. What we want to be able to do is build a 160-foottall building basically from existing grade, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That's what we want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The documents that were included, you've -- there's all kinds of variables in there from what the federal government wanted versus the local airport - MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAN: - and everything else, and they use different acronyms. Page 31 of67 February 15,2018 MR. MULHERE: We've talked about this for, I don't know, hours and hours and hours. CHAIRMAN STRAN: What I thought what we were ending up is your base starting point for measurement would be equivalent to the Naples Airport. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Naples Airport's base starting point for measurement is a plus eight NGVD and you want a 160-foot-tall building -- MR. MULIIERE: Yes, 168. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: -- you'd have to be 160 on top of the eight. So your zoned heigh! then, would be 168, and you're -- then you would have a different height for your actual. I have no way of knowing if that is consistent with what the airports intended, but there's too many different ways to figure out where to starl and stop on this thing. MR. MULFDRE: The maximum height that we can achieve, nothing -- no structure, nothing can be higher than 168 feet above mean sea level. Nothing can be higher than that. No elevator shaft, nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't use mean sea level. We use -- MR. MULHERE: I know, but that's why I tried to translate. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I asked you to provide an engineering computation telling us how we can convert that to a standard we understand so we know how your height factored in. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I say something here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's a bad thing to put in there, because what you're doing -- that's not the building height. That's the elevation of the top of the building is 168 NGVD. Nobody uses NGVD anymore. They've gone to NAVD. National Geodetic Vertical Datum has gone to North American Vertical Datum as of about 30 years. All your LiDAR is NAVD. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mean sea level, that is just a bad -- if you're going to put building height, don't put building height. Put elevation of top of building is 168 NGVD, and then convert it to NAVD, which you're supposed to be doing anyway. MR. MULHERE: Well, we'll dothat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you, by the time you come back, get somebody to explain where your measurement point starts and where it ends? I would hate to see you design this project your architect thinking one thing, your engineer's thinking another, and the county staff interpreting it a different way because of this document. So let's just all get on the same page. MR. MULI{ERE: I agree. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And I'm -- I'll move on. You've already corrected the 500 per unit. I understand what you're doing there. I do have staffquestions, but I'm going to get those afterwards. I'm just going to keep moving through my -- some of these were cleaned up by Ned's questions. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN : Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Quick question. It's a point of clarification. They had mentioned relocating that -- that big tower that's 180, that's the cell phone tower? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's there, yes. There's a cell phone tower there now. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just out of curiosity, where do you relocate a cell phone? I mean, who dictates that, and how does that get done? CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't have an answer. I mean, they've got to be zoned for a cell phone tower, and there's other locations in the county. I don't know where there's one in this area. I haven't looked at it. MR. MULI{ERE: That tower is, actually, I think, 190, maybe 196 feet. That is the obligation -- we're not the property owner. The county's the properly owner. That is the obligation of the county to work with the cell tower owner/operator to relocate that. And, you know, we're not even -- I'm not even involved in those discussions, so... CHAIRMAN STRAN: And they're here today, and I believe there's some kind of discussion Page 32 of 67 February 15,2018 involving how to mutually agree on to move forward with them, at some point today. I think we talked about that in the beginning of the meeting today. So we'll get to that eventually. MR. MULHERE: I've got to defer to my client when we get to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, there was material that indicated it was going to be southeast of the present location on Kirkwood Avenue. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, it's wherever it can be zoned for, yeah. I mean, they could -- any of the zoning districts, if there's property there that they can put a tower up, that would be a location. I don't know. I mean... ln your principal uses on Page I at the bottom, you talk about the indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage limited to 60,000 square feet. So whatever that square footage is, none of -- it's all indoor storage, even the mini - you could have mini-self-storage but it's all indoor storage; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: And is it only going to be "and" or is it going to be "or"? Always are you going to have a combination ofpassenger vehicle and self-storage, or are you going to have one or the other exclusively? MR. MULHERE: I think it's a combination. It's intended to allow for both because somebody that's storing a vehicle may want to have -- you know, if they have a condo, they may want to store some other stuff CHAIRMAN STRAN: I just wanted to understand. Number 3, your new car dealerships on the next page, you're talking about 30,000 square feet. One of the questions was, and I think it's been answered, all that's enclosed -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- within the -- with the exception of any temporary storage outside - MR. MULHERE: Special events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- use you've got listed here in one of your paragraphs. Okay. I'm looking at the rest of my -- well, these -- I've got some questions for staff. I guess the County Attorney's Offrce, I'd just like to confirm something. And, Heidi, I mentioned it to you before. All the advertising both for the NIM and everything else that's been used for this project advertises2l0units, l52hotel,T4and60forthemixofcommercial. Butthroughtheconversion,they're now saying they have a cap of 400 multifamily units, 200 hotel rooms, and 200,000 in combination retail and general office, and then some of the other uses, which is assisted living, self-storage, and new car dealership. Does the advertising that's been used to date provide for the flexibility to allow those conversions that happen without having the advertising changed? You've got to tum it on. MS. ASHION-CICKO: In my opinion, it's sufficient because it did indicate that there would be conversions. So they don't get all those maximums you're mentioning. They can only do that through a conversion, so -- CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASFilON-CICKO: -- I was satisfied with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the previous -- well, in the Paragraph X, it's on Page 4 of the PUD and the top of the page, it says, no building permit will be issued for vertical consfuction on the last un-development I\zD(U tract depicted on Exhibit C master plan unless the certificate of occupancy has been issued for the minimum 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development. Now, I know we're going to be changing some of those numbers or potentially. But then it says "or." Or the minimum 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development is included in the requested building permit. Now, the way I'm reading that is, the minimum - no building permit for vertical construction can happen without a CO on some of that, on the last development trac! or you've simply got to request a building permit for it, and it can happen. So why would you worry about doing a CO if you only need to apply for a building permit? You don't need to have it received. I'm just wondering, after the word "or," what is all that there for? Why don't we just scratch that? Page 33 of67 February 15,2018 MR. MULI{ERE: Because the way it read, if you don't include that last phrase, if you read just "no building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last un-development tract unless a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the minimum of 50 dwelling units" and so on and so fofth, then you stop right there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. MR.MULHERE: Ifyoudothat,thatdoesn'tconsiderthepossibilitythatthatlasttractwill,infact, include those 50 and 30-. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But if you're just including it by a reference to just requesting a building permit, we all have been in this business long enough. You can request a building permiq but that's it. It gets kicked out, and you never have to request it again and you're done. I don't think that ties it to what we're trying to get to. MR. MULI{ERE: What I was just discussing with my client is that that's in there because we don't want to be held up starting the next building waiting if it was under construction but no CO had been issued. So waiting, while one building's under construction or two buildings are under construction, and now we're coming in for the last phase, no CO has been issued there, but we want to start the third phase. We want to get a permit and we want to start construction, if I explained that conectly. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So what this would mean is on that last phase, you wouldn't have to have - if you previously, through the other phases, have not accomplished the minimums -- MR. MULFGRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- you still wouldn't have to complete them in the last phase because it's -- only -- you only have to do (sic) is request a building permi! right? MR. MULI{ERE: Well,Imean -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Jerry's shaking his head no, so obviously I'm not catching on what you're tying to do here. MR. MULI{ERE: Well, I mean, are you suggesting that in the event that it hasn't already occurred, we come in for the last tract we get a building permit, we commence construction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It doesn't say get a building permit and -- MR. MULFIERE: It says a building permit has been issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It says included in a - included in a requested building permit. MR. MULFDRE: Oh, okay. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: The word "requested" means you simply ask for it and it gets kicked back out again. You'd walk away. I requested it. It got turned down. Thank you. MR. MULFIERE: Well-- and -- issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- yes. Whatever word you want to come up with, it needs to be stronger than "requested." MR. MULHERE: I gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAN: ln Item C, which is Tract GO, the green open space -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- I had suggested we look and make sure that's consistent with the LDC or it's mirrored in one of the deviations that you've asked for, so... MR. MULHERE: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I hadn't got time -- I didn't get time to match those up, but that was something that needed to be done. On the developments - Exhibit B, the Development Standards Table, the fifth box or sixth box down on the left side, it says, "all other perimeter buffers." I suggested "all other PUD perimeter buffers" so there's no confusion over tracts in the perimeter. MR. MULI{ERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we have the actual height issue here which is part of that discussion we just had. MR. MULFIE,RE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And let me see. Page 34 of 67 February 15,2018 On the - Page 26 of 28, it's 2, transporLation, B, transit stops and shelters. Last sentence, I just wanted to have possibly a clarification. At the developer/owner's option, a unique design consistent with the project architecture may be utilized. I just want to make sure that the CAT folks have an opporhrnity to weigh in and agree that whatever you're designing is acceptable to them. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise, it could read that you're just going to do i! and this is what you're going to do, and everybody walks away from it. MR. MULI{ERE: That was the intention. And I thought -- let me just see something. I'm looking for it right now. A unique design consistent with the project architecture may be utilized. Yeah, we'll add something that - you know, with approval of Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Collier County CAT. They're all -- yeah, that will work. Just something so we make sure we have that approval. MR. MULI{ERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the backup to the staffreporg there's only 303 pages of it. It was Eric's, obviously. Page - one of the pages had a letter from you-all, your HMA, on December 2ls! 2016, andin that letter it said, both the CRA advisory board and the CRA board, parenthetical, County Commission sitting as the CRA board, end parenthetical, approved the conceptual development plan. Can you show me what plan they approved? MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not sure if that -- in hindsight Im not sure if that's 100 percent accurate. They approved a contract which has no bearing on this discussion which had conceptual plans attached to ig so... CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. But you proffered it as part of the discussion for support of your document -- MR. MULHERE: It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - so I think we get to see that plan. MR. MULIDRE: It's the same plan that you're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which plan is it; those colored renderings with all the high-rise buildings? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it's the renderings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only plan that you presented to these boards was that plan? MR. MULI{ERE: Exactly right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they think they're getting that plan? MR. MULFIERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's ourjob to make sure they do. MR. MULHERE: Yes. No question. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. You've now - I'm going into yourtraffic stuff, and - MR. MULFDRE: Early lunch? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, we're going to end up -- Norm's going to be here before we finish this, so I'm not going to waste time trying to get answers out of you that you're not as versed on as he is. MR. MULHERE: No,I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll go that route. And so that brings me to the end of, I think -- well, I've got Comprehensive Planning questions, but that's for staff. I'm just checking the rest real quick. The City of Naples issues, I've got several letters from Greg over at the city, or you have some - Eric did, and they're included in there, and I'll -- some of those that are involving transportation, I'll hold offuntil Norm gets here. The sidewalk issue they brought up, you basically explained you're always going to maintain the clear sidewalk that's required. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They're looking at bus load-out areas. I don't even know if a bus issue is needed there, but if there is - I guess Michelle got bored and left. So if she was still here, I'd Page 35 of67 February 15,2018 probably ask her that question. MR. MULI{ERE: Again, that language was developed 100 percent in consultation with them and actually came from them, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the city's position or suggestion on the site water management system? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I'm familiar with it. And we have to go through the permitting process. To the degree that we have to add attenuation for water quality, it's going to be part of the permitting process. We haven't even designed the site for stormwater yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're suggesting -- they want to make sure you get through the -- you utilize the South Florida standards. MR. MULHERE: Yes. And, you know, there is a pond site, as I mentioned to you, that we will utilize for all or a portion of our stormwater. That's what the county bought it for, paid a lot of money to acquire the land and create the pond. And we're entitled to use that, so we will use tha! but we'll go through the permitting process. And whatever's required, we'll adhere to it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Pieces of the questions that perlain to transportation from the city, I'll wait till Norm gets here. MR. BELLOWS: We do have someone here from the CAT other than Michelle. CHAIRMAN STRAN: There's another person in CAT besides Michelle? Oh. Well, by all means, come on up. Well, I guess he can answer the question in regards to -- yeah, please come on up forjust a minute. It will only take a second to ask you what I need to. I didn't know Michelle had anybody else working with her. She's been carrying the load for so many years, I didn't know anybody else was there. MR. DE LEON: Yes. Just for the record, Omar De Leon with CAT with Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pleasure to meet you. The only question - you heard the comment about the reference to the architecture for the bus transition. Is there any problems with having a developer do that separately, or do you have standards that they cannot change? MR. DE LEON: No. And I think we've had discussions regarding some of the requirements FDOT will have as well as with regards to shelters and things like that. But we will be agreeable to any structure that -- we'll have to have that discussion about the structure and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And you're - the City of Naples provided the following question: Turn lanes or bus pullouts, loading areas created outside ofvehicle through lanes are frequently used by transit buses for dropoffand pickup. The existing bus stop is located within the 45-mile-per-hour travel lane on U.S. 41, a less than desirable location. A bus pullout or turn lane is recommended. Have you guys looked at this site for a possible bus location, or did you not see it needed on this particular site? MR. DE LEON: We didn't see a need just yet. I think what was discussed, that it would be evaluated after to see what the usage may be. But at this point we don't see a need for it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If the usage is based on what they're supposed to provide or what their agreements were providing, which is 210, 152 plus commercial, would that provide you with enough information to know if you need a bus stop? And if so, if you wait too long to enter into the picture, how would you get the bus stop? Because the building's going to be locked in. MR. DE LEON: No. Well, the bus stop is coming in. I think what's - the discussion is, I guess, the pullout or pull-in is what - MR. MULHERE: They're doing abus stop. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DE LEON: Yeah. So the sheltered stop, that would be - is what's agreed on. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And is the bus stop that's provided for causing the travel lane on U.S. 4l or Davis Boulevard to be blocked while the bus loads and unloads? MR. DE LEON: Yeah. Temporarily, when they - boarding and the lighting at, like, typical bus stops along those roadways. Page 36 of67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I need. COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: They don't now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying they don't. I just wanted to understand, because that was a question from the city. Im trying to get a direct answer. MR. MULHERE: Well - and I just want to add, as I said, there are lots of examples of arterial roadways, and the CAT bus, because it's -- because the majority of the routes utilize the arterial roadways, they do stop everywhere along the arterial roadways without pullout. You know, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: FDOT is involved in this? MR. MULHERE: We are required -- all access has to be reviewed and approved by FDOT. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they are involved with this bus stop and the whole thing, too? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONEREBERT: Okay. Just- MR. MULHERE: And, you know, I'm glad you asked that question, because you just reminded me quickly, I wanted to say, the existing conditions right now have far more ill-designed, wide points of ingress and egress running both along Davis and along 41. We are actually reducing the conflict points and, of course, designing them under the current standards for the safest and most appropriate access, so thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- thank you, sir. MR. DE LEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, this is kind of an overall idea orthought. The first renderings that I saw on this project included the property at the very point which I think at one time you-all may have considered purchasing to include in your properly. I know that didn't happen. It got purchased by somebody else. I did see the renderings, though, that had different structures than are there today. If you had gotten that property, would you have included it in this process? MR. MULHERE: Yes. We had at one point discussed whether we could make some provisions to do that even though we don't have it now. But it was just impossible. We don't own the property. We don't have the right. And we just couldn't do it. We tried to sort of say, in the event we get ig it's part of this, but you can't do that with zoning. We'd have to come back and amend the zoning and do that. We never actually really had any legal rights to that property. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh,l understand. MR. MULHERE: And those renderings that you saw, they actually showed other proposed improvements could go on the property. But then after we got the actual graphics, we ghosted those in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what happened, those original renderings were a much lower structure. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I notice that you more or less complemented your site's ability because of the transition between the higher structure that is proposed there now versus what you have. Well, if that structure wasn't builq would that still matter? MR. MULHERE: I think if that sructure wasn't built and somebody else -- us or somebody else came in and constructed something, there still has to be an appropriate transition there, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I got to thinking about it is what you're asking for today and what you've shown, you know, in the program that you've laid out basically is a first-time idea for Collier County. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Im wondering if the front property would ever -- is ever going to possibly change. And you mentioned your concern over their operation being a hotel and how that would deplete your ability maybe to have a hotel as well. But if they were to come in and ty to do a PUD and ask for the same densities and issues you're asking for, then you'd end up with competition in all facets. So what would Page37 of67 February 15,2018 happen then? MR. MULHERE: Oh, youknow -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, I'm wondering from the overall grand plan that you're looking at - MR. MULHERE: They're less than half the size of our project. So, think, that would be less than half of the intensity or density. They would be eliminated -- if they did that, they would be limited the same way we are by traffic trips and other limitations that you put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ijust thought it was MR. MULHERE: I don't know who owning that parcel -- other than market forces affecting your ability to go forward with the development, I don't know who wouldn't take advantage of the incentives that have been provided in the CRA, which include density. You can double use. You can - unlike other areas, you can calculate residential density and hotel density and use them both on the site. You can do 120 feet zoned on that site. So I don't know who wouldn't want to maximum the utilization of those incentives. You know, who's going to build a one-story building? I mean, you don't take advantage of those incentives. So do I think there still should be an appropriate transition? Yes. What that is, it's -- you know, it's -- I can only comment on what I know is approved on the site today. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Bob, I understand. It was more of a -- just tying to understand how this thing could flow different ways. Because you guys are looking for maximum flexibility, and I understood your concern over, ifthey do a hotel, how can you have a hotel, too? You may need some transition. So that's kind of where I was coming from, trying to understand how far that transition would have to go. So -- but with that in mind, that's the last questions I have right now. I've got a lot of questions of staff. That will have to come probably after lunch. But what I'd like to do right now, in order to help with those in the audience who are here to discuss this project if anybody would want to speak now in lieu of later today so they can move forward, if they have other things to do, before lunch, we can certainly accommodate public speakers right now if you-all would like. And so, Ray, do you have any registered public speakers first? MR. MULHERE: One speaker. Katie Cole. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And all I ask is, Ms. Cole, if you'd like to speak now or later this afternoon, it's up to you. If you want to speak now, you can come up to the microphone. If you don't come up, I know you don't want to. MS. COLE: I'llwait. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else in the public who would like to speak now in lieu of later today? Ms. Penniman, did you want to speak now? MS. PENNIMAN: If at all possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. We'd love to accommodate you. MS. PENNIMAN: I appreciate your allowing me to speak today. I'm not here representing the City Council. I'm here as an individual living in the City of Naples. And the amount of impact on the city regarding this particular project was daunting to begin with. Now we're dealing with numbers that far exceed the original numbers. And that, you know, only increases the impact on the city. So, you know, go carefully. Go - you know, go slowly with this, because this isn't going to be the only project that's going to be on East 41. If this does what it's supposed to do, it's going to have a cataly'tic influence on what is done further east. So now you're increasing not only roads - or traffic, but, you krow, I have every question as to whether or not the infrastructure is there to even handle, necessarily, what's going to possibly be on the triangle. Ijust think the impact of this is so huge that we need to look at it not necessarily as one area of the county but a catalyst as to what could be going forward. That's what the CRA basically was saying to these people. If it works, there's going to be greater impact on the city. So I'm more than concemed about that. I was concemed about, frankly, the original iteration. The Page 38 of67 February 15,2018 thing that made it somewhat attractive was that it was a very attractive project. The 500 units, you know, that is of some concern to me tha! frankly, I'm not even sure a five-foot sidewalk is adequate. We hope that there would be more pedestrian connectivity between the city and this project as opposed to auto. So all Im asking is, you know, to look at this in isolation from anything else is just, I don't think -- you know, from my standpoint, would not be a well-planned community. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. PENNIMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the public who would like to speak now in lieu of later? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that Eric, it's going to fall to you for a beginning of the staff report, and then I know Comprehensive Planning has got a part of ig and I know Jeremy's here waiting for the LDC piece, so... MR. BELLOWS: Did you want to start with Growth Management Plan amendment first, as you mentioned earlier? CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that would be a good idea because then we can focus on the questions while David's up here, and then we get into the traffrc stuffand others that will come with Eric hopefully by the time - after lunch. MR. WEEKS: Good moming, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff I will be brief. I first just want to put on the record that the petition complies with the statutory standards for a small-scale amendment. Bob went over the portion of that. The project being 10 acres or less in size, it's not within an area ofcritical state concern, et cetera, et cetera. Secondly, it's staffs opinion that the project complies with the broader statutory requirements for any type of Comprehensive Plan amendment, and that includes that the amendment does specifo the density and intensity parameters, that there is either a need demonstrated for what is proposed here and/or that the project reflects or fulfills a community vision, and in particular staffwould say it falls on that latter side, that it fulfills the vision of the community as expressed and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay which itself was created as a mechanism for implementing the community redevelopment plan, which dates back to the year 2000. We do think this is an appropriate location for the site. After all, it is within the site identified within the Comprehensive Plan overlay for a catalyst project. From a general compatibility perspective, staffdoes find that the project is compatible with the sunounding area. We don't look at the detailed compatibility for a given project. We defer that to ttre zoning services staff. The infrastrucfure impacts, as well as the impacts upon the environment and *re cultural resources on the property, are all acceptable as well. Finally, staffdoes recommend approval, as stated in the staffrepor! subject to some, what I'll call, cleanup language changes. They are not substantive in nature. They arejust to get the language ofthe subdistrict into proper format, maintain intemal consistency, et cetera. The one area that we did not recommend any change to of the applicant's language is that portion of the amendment that affects the Bayshore lGateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay itself. They simply have provided cross-references between the subdistrict and that overlay or exceptions to limitations within the overlay, again, to recognize that the subdistrict does exist within the overlay. And that also includes, Mr. Chairman, a couple points you had raised yesterday about the subdistrict reference within the overlay. In my opinion, the language is acceptable as it is. It does not need to be changed any farther. So that is the staffrecommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? We'll start with Stan and then Ned. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you said the infrastructure is sufficien! you mean that utilities staffhas looked at water and sewer, and transportation has looked at that part and determined that it Page 39 of67 February 15,2018 either will handle it or it car be made to handle it? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Ned, then Tom. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two questions. First of all, how -- with respect to infrastructure, how can -- how can the roadways be modified other than widening, which is not on the table, in order to accommodate the increased traffic we all expect we'll see starting with this? MR. WEEKS: Two things. One, our frnding that the impacts are acceptable for infrastructure is based upon the reviews of the staff within those specific disciplines. Secondly, I would go back to something that Bob mentioned during his presentation, and that is this project is within a transportation concurrency exception area. So what that translates to is that this project is not reviewed on a link-by-link concurency basis as would typically occur for a given project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, and I realize that the application is within the prescribed limits and is excused from other limits. MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question, though, is as a practical matter, does staffhave a point of view on the practical effect of the additional traffic coming from this project and then combined with subsequent developments? And is the net result of those increases something that is going to make East Naples a better place? MR. WEEKS: Since that's a very specific question related to transportation, I'll have to defer to those professionals. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My second question then is, the word "catalyst" has been used a lot. Would you tell me what that means to you or that means to the counf? MR. WEEKS: Based on the terminology in the overlay in the Future Land Use Element, it is a redevelopment of the project. There's no specific project in mind. There are allowances, as Bob has mentioned, for a maximum of 12 units per acre for a mixed-use project on this site or any of the other properties within the mini-triangle area: U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard, and Commercial Drive. So any redevelopment -- I mean, that could be viewed very broadly that any redevelopment of the mini-triangle is a catalyst for further development because it's removing what is there now, which is, just broadly speaking, not the most desirable of land uses for a gateway either into the City of Naples or out -- from the City of Naples heading toward the unincorporated area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Any redevelopment would be a catalyst? MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes. As a practical matter, because of the value of the properly, I would think it would be a significant -- significant project on the site. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess, I thought what you meant by catalyst was something that was of a higher quality than just any possible redevelopment, something that would have the effect of being a magnet or an attraction feature to bring other first-class development in, not just any redevelopment. MR. WEEKS: Well, certainly the better, the higher quality, the better of a project that we see at this location would function to attract similar type projects, but the language in the Comprehensive Plan does not specifo, it does not tell us exactly what type of development we're looking for. But again, Commissioner, I go back to my comment that given the value of the land, we think it's - just to be economically viable, it's going to take a significant investment on the part of the developer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: David, just a clarification about the scope of your review. You said you didn't get into the details of it. So, hypothetically, you're looking at whether a hotel is compatible on this site with the neighboring properlies, and is it correct that you're not looking at the intensity of that hotel? It could be a l0-room hotel or a thousand-room hotel. You don't get into those details. You're just looking at whether a hotel is compatible, or do you consider the intensity and the size of the hotel in your review? Page 40 of67 February 15,2018 MR. WEEKS: We do consider the intensity of the project. Simply to say a hotel because that could be a two-story, three-story building, so we do take into account the overall intensity of the development that occurs. What ['m saying is we don't look at it to the detailed level that zoning would. Whether we look at building heights, building orientations, building mass, setbacks, maximum height standards, amount of open space on the property, landscape buffers. All those types of details that zoning would look a! we don't look atitatthat level. We just broadly say, if this intensity of development were located here, would it generally be compatible with the uses on the surrounding properties? You know, we have commercial right on the corridor. We have single-family development to the north in the Brookside subdivision and southeast of this property across 41. Beyond the commercial corridor, there's also single-family residential there. So in the big-picture view of the surrounding area, is this generally compatible? That's what we look at, and it's our conclusion it is. MR. EASTMAN: I appreciate your answer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: In your answer, though, you indicated you do look at intensity? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 210 development units thatthis was first portrayed as provides 39 units per acre, gross acre. Do you -- can you tell me any other project in that area or, for that matter, in Collier County that has 39 units per acre? MR. WEEKS: I don't know of any. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And the second part of your density analysis, it looks at the 400 units per acre -- per development, and it says that's 75 -- 74.77 development units per acre. So I'm then to assume that if there's no similar compatible development units per acre of 39, you certainly don't have any at 75. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you look at intensity, how did you determine this was compatible? MR.WEEKS: Again,thatbig-pictureview,whetherit's50unitsperacre,39,77,l2,justlookingat the total intensity of the project. Part of thag a big part of that is the actual building that can be on the property or buildings, because there's the height limit. Though the Comprehensive Plan amendment does defer to the mixed-use PUD document for the specific heigh! we do know that it's going to be a very tall building because we're not blind to what the PUD proposes. So staff-- Comprehensive Planning staffis certainly aware that the building height proposed is 160-something feet. So we've looked at more the standpoint of there could be multiple buildings of this 160-something-foot heigh! and is that generally compatible with the broader surrounding area. And regardless of the number of dwelling units, they have to fit within a certain building mass, and that physical impact is what we've focused on. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, had you tied the provision of being a catalyst to the ability for the density to be compatible on a redevelopment area such as this, I think that would have been more logical for me to understand. I mean, a stand-alone project of this magnitude, I'm not complaining about the density. I'm just asking for purposes of trying to undentand how your departrnent saw this as compatible. I understand what you said, so we'll leave it at that. MR. WEEKS: I'll comment further just to say that we certainly recognize that the plan right now allows for 12 units per acre maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And this is three-fold or more greaterthan that. We've given deference to a couple things in particular; one, the fact that the CRA advisory board has been supportive of the project because, after all, it's in the CRA's boundaries. It's in their area. We give deference to what their opinion is, understanding that their focus is not on land use compatibility. You know, those are things that fall within the plannin{zoning realm, but they are looking at the economic development of the whole CRA. That's the whole purpose of their existence is to try to Page 4l of 67 February 15,2018 promote more development and redevelopment within that area. So we've given deference to them and their support ofthe project. And, secondly, we've given some deference to the applicant in his assertion that they need the development intensity that they are asking for and the flexibility they are asking for to make the project viable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you, in your understanding of what the CRA board had liked, realize that they were looking at that rendering that was provided to us in our packet and that the language in the zoning application and even in your Comprehensive Plan doesn't necessarily provide that rendering? I mean, does that have any bearing on your review ofthis? Because if you relied on the CRA to believe this was a better project for the are4 and it was the portrayal of the photograph that was provided to everybody and they got flexibility in here to a point where you may not get that portrayal, how does that affect your analysis? MR. WEEKS: First, I don't know specifically what the CRA advisory board looked at so I don't know -- the renderings you're referring to, I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, the testimony today was they saw the renderings that are part of the packet. I didn't know if you've read the packet or not. MR. WEEKS: I did not know that prior -- beforehand exactly what they had looked at. I just knew the project. I knew that the petitioner has had discussions with CRA stafi that they had made a presentation to the advisory board. I just did not know the specifics of what it was. Secondly, to the specific question of the renderings themselves, I could only say that our viewpoint was just, again, the general compatibility. I think it would be appropriate if the CRA advisory board has made their recommendation based on specific renderings that the county should do whatever it can to try to implement, then, what is shown in those renderings. You know, we've been through this before -- not an assertion in this case. But we've been through this before in my 30-something years here when we see preffy pictures, and this is what could be there but we have to make sure that the regulatory part of the planning and zoning application that actually gets adopted, when it gets implemented, that it will make sure that the pretty picture is what we end up with there, to the greatest extent possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the piece that I've had the most trouble getting my arms around with my discussions Tuesday this week and so far today. In part of your Comprehensive Planning analysis, you refer to the subdistrict location is within five miles of high employment centers, Naples Community Hospital downtown, multiple shopping areas, including Coastland Center, Naples High School, many other employment locations. Did you do that because you think this is going to be an affordable housing project? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, because most of the references - a lot of the people that work at Naples Community and the shopping centers like that probably aren't high wage earners. And I'm not sure this project is going to be even close to their realm. I'm just wondering what relevance that language had. MR. WEEKS: It's a general observation that there are employment centers, major employment centers within a reasonable distance to the property and that possibly some of the persons that would be residing here could be employed at those locations. The shopping in particular, I think, is probably not the best example for us to include. But the hospital, in particular, and schools, they employee professionals, particularly at the administrative and management level that potentially, I would say, could be of an income level that might stay here. Commissioner, we don't know what the final product is going to be. We don't know what income level will be targeted or be able to afford these units. It was, again, a part of the broad evaluation of the product. And part of that comment as well was tying into the fact that this project site is similar to a mixed-use activity center. Mixed-use activity centers being intersections of major roadways, allowing for high density, allowing for mixed use, and many of the activity centers also are -- themselves provide employment opportunities or are proximate to major employment centers. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And my last question: David, yesterday when we met I asked you to Page 42 of 67 February 15,2018 clariff aparagraph that tumed out to be part of the applicant's submittal, not necessarily the recommended language that you-all are providing, and it was that No. 4 item on Page 4 of their process that said, this particular paragraph is exempt from the mini-triangle subdistrict. And I just want to make sure, because I was confused. There's the mini-triangle subdistric! which is only this piece of those properties compared to the whole mini-triangle are4 which is about from Commerce (sic) Drive all the way to the point. ls that -- that's what it -- that's what we're -- all we're dealing with from the comprehensive perspective today. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. So that paragraph is needed because it does not comprise the entirety of the mini-triangle catalyst project that's identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It's just a portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And just so we make sure we're not tripping any self-amending language, I brought a point out to you in a Paragraph 8 on Page 5 of their submittal that suggested that the mini-district mixed-use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the mini-triangle subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. I suggest we drop that last language off"and in its implementing MPUD zoning." Did you look at that, and do you have a problem with that or - MR. WEEKS: I still think it's appropriate to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, you've been doing it longer than I have, so lll go along with your position on it. I just wanted to make sure. And in No. 10, the word "except" I suggested change to the word "and." Did you have a problem with that? MR. WEEKS: I also think it should remain as "except." CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I did look at both ofthose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. As long as you looked at them. They just raised questions of me. They're not any,thing I was going to die my sword over. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. And that's the last questions I have for the Comprehensive Planning side of it. And, Bob, you have one thing? Or, David? MR. WEEKS: One last thing: I did want to acknowledge that per the earlier discussions, staffis aware that the minimum number of dwelling units would move from 50 to 100. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. And there might be other changes that were needed in that language, that minimum language you have if - depending on how the next day -- the rest of the day folds out. Bob, did you want something? MR. MTILI{ERE: Very briefly, just relative to this discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You normally get a rebuttal but -- MR. MULHERE: I know. Relative to the comp plan. It's directly related to that -- CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. MLILI{ERE: - to some of the questions that were asked. When we made a presentation to the CRA board, the official presentation, we not only discussed the graphic exhibits and showed them those, but we also discussed the conversion formula. They had all of the information in front of them. So their decision was based on -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Did they realize that the document that we're seeing today had 50 units at 500 square feet each and a bowling alley potential, or did that - MR. MULHERE: Well, we didn't talk about that, but it was in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did they realize that the number of units you were looking at as a cap were over 400 -- were 400 units? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULIIERE: So - and the other thing I wanted to add real quick, you know, the term "catalyst" is used in the Comp Plan, and it was just -- a question was asked about it. It's not specifically defined, I think, as David said. To my knowledge, when something isn't specifically defined, you would use the sort of common definition of it. I believe that's some form of legal process. And I did look at this, and I just wanted to share it with you. You know, it really refers to a chemical Page 43 of 67 February 15,2018 process, a substance that advances a chemical reaction without changing the substance. But the synonyms, I think, are more telling, and that's what I looked at. It's a stimulus, stimulation, spark, spur, insight, impefus. And I think that was the intent of using that word was as an impetus, a spark, an incitement an inducement to do further redevelopment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which is really more than "any" redevelopment. MR. MULHERE: I think it is, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you. That takes us -- and I notice that Norm came in, so it's a good time to take an hour break for lunch. Thank you for showing up for lunch, Norm. That will help. So we'll resume all this -- we'll resume at 1 o'clock when we come back from lunch. Thank you. MR. MULFDRE: Thankyou. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Dearbom is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, welcome back from lunch. When we left for lunch, we were finishing up with the Comprehensive Planning comments part of this collective group of land use actions. And before we left, I realized, in seeing one lonely person in the audience, that Jeremy French is sitting here waiting for us to address the LDC issue. And I don't know if there's much to address there, so I thought we'd take that first and free up Jeremy to get back to his office and do the things he does best. So, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Afternoon. Jeremy Frana, forthe record. Yeah, so the LDC amendment there is one criteria in the LDC for LDC amendments, and that is to -- that they preserve the consistency with the GMP -- within the GMP. Our analysis is that it does do just that. We've also provided some other analysis about the exemption from building height, and we recommend approval. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: And you heard the discussion of the height and how it needs to be a little bit thought out yet, but no matter what happens, you're just referring to it as written in ordinance 2'1 - whatever the - it would be a 2018 ordinance now, but -- MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We include a reference also to the FAA determinations and the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the applicant, I believe, is going to come back with something to show how that folds out to Collier County's numbers, so maybe there's some opportunity there to take a look at it as well. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I didn't want to see the actual number within the LDC. Leave that in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, this is one of those items that we'll probably vote on two weeks or so fiom now, the next meeting. But is there any questions or any comments about the land use -- or the LDC language that Jeremy has? It's 9D. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We freed you up. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I guess I should just comment further then. You said we'll approve it in a couple of weeks. It should be - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if we'll approve it. We'll review it for vote in about two -- the first of March. MR. MULHERE: We like whatyou said. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Just that it should be reviewed at the same time as the GMP. It refers to that GMP subdistrict. It should have that same date. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It will be. The only thing I'm suggesting is as the staffgets new information about the height from the applicant based on discussion today, you may want to -- there may be somettring that needs to be changed in your language. So at least you've got another two or three weeks to get that done. Page 44 of 67 February 15,2018 MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeremy. Okay. Now, that takes us where we left off. And the next up was going to be a staffreport on the PUD. Before we do that, Bob, during lunch I got to thinking about some of the issues that have come up and, basically, one of the things is a maximum type of uses. You have 400 residential,200 hotel units, and 200,000 square feet of commercial, and that's due to this conversion formula that you've got in here. So can you tell me, since you did these tables, if you had used -- if you build 400 multifamily dwelling units, how many hotel rooms and/or retail general office would be left? And vice vers4 if you built 200 hotel rooms -- see, this all gets to providing the -- MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- mix of the picture in the renderings that you provided. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to make a general statement then I'm going to ask Norm to come up. He actually prepared the table. He's the transportation expert. It's really just a mathematical formula. If he needs to bring his calculator with him, he'll have to do that. But anyway - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I think it would help us understand. Because if you use everlthing you've got to build 400 units, we're not going to have anything left, and it's not going to be the mixed use. MR. MULfIRE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that's the kind of analysis - I was just wondering - MR. MULHERE: Well, except that we have a minimum, so we can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, minimuln, yes, a bowling alley. Okay. MR. MULHERE: No, it's not going to be - it's going to be restaurants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one of the uses you're asking for. MR. MULHERE: That's one of the uses, yeah, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now -- and, by the way, we're on the uses. We discussed the idea of making these uses not stand-alone buildings and accessory to the other uses because you guys wanted to use the bowling alley, a boutique kind of bowling alley thing in conjunction - MR. MULHERE: We don't have an objection. We don't want to build - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - but your language doesn't say that, so that's something else we need to consider. MR. MULI{ERE: No staad-alone. They'll be integrated into these multi-story buildings, which I thought I did in the purpose and intent, but we'll make it more regulatory. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: I haven't -- and that's one of the things we have to read by next meeting, so... MR. MTILHERE: Okay. So what I wanted to say was you made a statement that I don't think is entirely accurate. I don't think you meant to -- you said you've got these maximums. Those are based on the tables. Those maximums aren't really based on the tables. We didn't establish a maximum by calculating -- you know, using the table. Those maximums were based on a reasonable expectation in the marketplace, and they would not consume -- necessarily consume, you know, all of the - in other words, you have to do the calculations. So your example of if we built 190 additional multifamily, how much office square footage would that consume and how much hotel, vice vers4 would that consume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't remember saying that it wasn't -- I can't remember what you just tried to paraphrase. MR. MULI{ERE: I thought you said they came - that we arrived at that through the table. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. I wanted to know if you were to do 400 units of residential, what's left to build. MR. MULHERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your table is probably the most complicated conversion table we've seen to date. I mean, the other one was Hacienda. Did you do that one, too? Page 45 of 67 February 15,2018 MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're at fault in both cases. But the Hacienda one was -- MR. MULHERE: There are others. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: - the beginning of, basically, a lot of conversions. This one's a completely diflerent animal. I'm just try to figure out if you - MR. MULHERE: Parklands had one. I did that one, too. But anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this one's broader than anything I'm -- MR. MULHERE: It is. It is. It's a unique site. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So if Norm needs some more time, you've got the question. In the meantime, we can start with the staffreport, and we'll pick this up later then. Eric? MR. JOHNSON: Forthe record, Eric Johnson, principal planner. Staffreviewed the proposed MPUD. Provided that the GMP amendment, the companion GMP amendment is approved, this MPUD would be consistent with the GMP and also with the LDC provided that the nine deviations are approved as well as them complying with the three conditions of approval that are attached to the staffreporl. Just some housekeeping things I wanted to point out with the title. You'll notice that there's a blue underline that says "near" rather than the strikeout "on." This was advertised in the Naples Daily News to say "on" rather than "near," but the letters that were sent out and the signs that are posted on the properly say "near." This is more accurate, and this will be the way it's advertised for the Board of County Commissioners. Also, early on in the process there was a gentleman named Ted Brousseau who wanted to be notified of the NIM. I notified him of the NIM the day before. He was in attendance at the NIM. He also wanted to be notified of this meeting. Evidently he is not here today. Finally -- well, not finally. Also, I think it would be appropriate to change one criterion -- one response to the staffreport and that's if the companion GMPA petition were to be approved, that's how I would respond to that. Finally, I was looking over the PUD document and under the emergency portion of the commitments, there is a misspelled word. "Necessary" needs to be spelled correctly. So, in all, staffis recommending approval of the petition. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Eric, let's start with your recommendations on Page 25. Your first recommendation is any landscaping proposed within the Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard rights-of-way require approval from the Florida Department of Transportation. So if you didn't say that, they could just go out and put stuffin the medians along those right-of-ways? MR. JOHNSON: Not exactly, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what value is that recommendation? MR. JOHNSON: One of the renderings showed landscaping in the rightof-way, so I felt it was important for me to say something. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But even though the rendering shows it, we may -- a rendering shows it, ifs outside the limits ofthe PUD, right? MR. JOHNSON: It would be,I suppose. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I just -- again, fm not sure why we need to be repeating something that has to be done anyway. The issues of compatibility, and you heard me ask David Weeks where he has seen 39 units per acre gross in Collier County before. Have you ever experienced that? MR. JOHNSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this one is not only 39, but it can go up to about 75, and I'm assuming, then, you've never known -- well, you don't have anythin g at 7 5 , so how did you base your compatibility criteria excluding the fact the density is beyond any'thing we -- what's the closest we ever came to it? I think it's, what,26? Page 46 of 67 February 15,2018 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I don't know the answer to that question. I haven't been here long enough. But the way I based my analysis was on the proposed language that's in the GMP amendmen! the purpose and intent ofthat, as well as the distance between the subject property and any buildings that would be on site compared with how far they are liom residential uses, particularly single-family residential uses in single-family disfict. That's how I conducted the analysis. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fact we don't have any urban high-rise, I understand it's a new threshold, and I'm - I dont have a problem with that part of it. Ijust wanted to understand how you fitit in with the intensity and density, and basically you really didn't. You looked at it's in a commercial area with other commercial products, and it's far enough from - away from single-family for you to feel comfortable with it. MR. JOHNSON: Well, considering -- I'm sure Mr. Bellows is going to chime in. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For tle record, Ray Bellows. That is a correct statement. They're also using conversion factors to stay within the approved trip generation for this site. So ifyou're reducing commercial square footage in favor ofresidential units, the overall intensity is still within what was contemplated with the approval. So while staff didn't object to the higher density residential, it was only because it was part ofthis conversion factor, at least in my mind. MR. JOHNSON: And then, finally, if I may just add, you know, the C4 GTMUD-MXD is surrounding this property, and that has heights that are allowing up to I l2 feet. Ifyou go to the site, you'll notice that there aren't that many buildings that are that heighg if at all. So, really, it could be said that the surrounding properties aren't being utilized to their highest and best potential. So it would look a lot different and this project would be seemingly different ifeverything around it were built to the highest and best use on the surrounding properties. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Much befter answer. Thank you. We had talked when I met with you on Page 4 just above the ltem C, that X, I brought it up to the applicant. The sentence that's added or the portion ofthe sentence added that's after the word "or," is that something you find necessary for descriptive purposes for that Item X on that page? MR. JOHN SON : I wou ld not have a problem if anyhing after that "or" was struck out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going through the rest of what I've got here, Eric, sojustgive me a second to find itall. That's all I've got of staffat this time. So thank you, Eric. I guess that takes us to the road issues. And we can either ask the questions or, Norm, ifyou want to at least give us some information. Did you bring any - something tlrat explains the road system or situation that you're dealing with out there so we can get a graphic view of it? Or if no! we'll walk you through the questions. MR. MULFIERE: I don't know if it's on there. You have to go to the -- there you go, and then open it up. MR. TREBILCOCK: I need to be swom in, I guess, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. You came in late. (The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a certified planner and professional engineer with 28 years ofexperience. And I appreciate the opportunity to cover with you. What I have is kind of a summary of the Traffic Irnpact Statement that you have in more detail in your packets, but I can kind ofreview those items and then hopefully be able to answer any questions you may have as well. So what we really cover in the Traffic knpact Statement is a description ofthe project from a trafiic perspective in terms of land use codes that we use, ard we come up with a trip generation, and then we distribute those trips and assign them. We look at the background traffic that's there, and that background traffic data is, you know, developed and held by Collier County orthe City ofNaples, as the case may be, and then we look at the existing and future road network, and then we really add on our traffic impacts over Pase 17 of 67 February 15,2018 what's going to be there in the future and look at what those impacts will be, and then we look at site access and then have some conclusions. So from a land use standpoint the various uses that we looked at, the snapshot, were the residential, multifamily, and there's a specific ITE land use code. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has a land use code for that hotel, likewise, the shopping center, and the medicaVdental office, and they're looked at in different ways; you know, dwelling units, rooms, those would be occupied rooms, the square footage of the shopping center and the office as well. And then that really translates into a total trip generation. We look at a daily volume, a.m. peak, p.m. peak. And when we look at concunency, though, for the county, what we look at is what we call the p.m. peak hour and peak direction of concurrency is what's analyzed. But in terms of the trips, when we run the trip generation numbers, we have kind of what we call a gross value and a peak-hour amount, and normally we'll look at a two-way volume is what you look at. So the upper right-hand corner, that 875, that's your peak p.m. hour trips, totally no adjustment. Then when we look at internal, that's intemal capfure between uses. You know, normally, that's the idea and ideal behind a mixed-use development because, you know, you can go to one place and not really have to get out on the road network because your needs can be serviced there by, you know, an existing restaurant or other type of use that may be there. So we use those values, collier County also, for internal capture. ITE has limits that they'll allow, and those will be typically higher than what Collier County -- Collier County will lower that, because they do want to look at what I call a conservative or high trip generation. So we come up with an external value for that with internal capture. And then there's another thing called pass-by, and pass-by is simply that -- somebody that's out on the road, he may -- that person may stop -- you know, the real simple example is getting a gallon of milk on your way home or something. You stop in, you get that, but you still were going to be on the road anyway. So we call those pass-by trips. But they actually go into the site and on the driveway. So when we look at impacts for driveways and such, we don't exclude the pass-by trips because those physically are occurring. We eliminate those from concurrency, though, because those trips were already on the road, and this site just removed them temporarily, and then they got back out on the road. So that's how that's used. And, again, Collier County has a limiting number on that. IT will typically have a higher value, and Collier County will always limit those. And so we follow Collier County's guidelines on those limitations for pass-by trips as well. But -- so then we come up with a total net external. So that total net extemal is used just for what we call a concunency review. A total external is used for the turn-lane sizing, that kind of thing, when we do our analysis. So it gives you a little bit of a summary of things. But a part of the distribution will look at an overall distribution of traffic, and then that will translate into peak trips in different directions, and then we apply that on various tables on the links for the road network as well. So, in a surrunary, you know, the analysis you have in the Traffic Impact Statement has a lot more details on tables and as such as all. But one of the things that we identiff is that the project is in a transportation concurrency exception area, so it is exempt from transportation concurrency; however, we've still done the analysis to show you that there is not a concurrency issue with the project, but - to understand that, because the idea in these -- this particular area is you want to promote these kind of projects to develop and as such, so you do have that exception for this area. But, again, we still went ahead and did the analysis for you. And we look at, you know, the background traffic. We looked up to 2021was the projection, and looking at Tamiami Trail Eas! its peak hour volume that's going to be without the projects, where it's going to be at, as well as Davis Boulevard, and these are just different links of the roadways as well. And then we look at the future conditions of the roads. They'll remain as, basically, six-lane roads. You've got the slightly wider section of Tamiami Trial as it gets into the city itself, but those are then the peak-hour volumes of those roadways that exist out there. Page 48 of67 February 1 5, 201 8 And in the end what happens is our -- the surrounding links will be operating at a satisfactory level of service with or without the project. That's really the bottom line in the future when we added all the trips for the project on there. The project impacts, though, would be considered significant, because it would be above normally, like, the 2 percent, and we give those values in the tables and the traffic study, but they're not adverse because there's not -- we're not going below concurrency as a result ofthe project as well. We are looking at consolidating the connections to the site. The existing site has about nine driveways, and we're going to consolidate them to two driveways on Davis Boulevard ard two on U.S.4l. We also propose to have interconnects to the adjacent sites, to the Trio site to the west there, aad we're hoping to actually do a shared access with them as well as to further reduce driveway connections and then to the site to the east as well when that is spurred for developmen! too. We do look at - we've coordinated with the CAT fotks on transit stop accommodation as well and proposed and coordinated with CAT too, and that really gets further defined when we do the site design. And the left tum lane extensions, we anticipate having to do those. And they would normally be reviewed at the time ofdevelopment order approval by the FDOT. The Florida DOT - both ofthese roadways, Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41, are FDOT roadways, so we would submit to them any designs ard traffic studies, and then they independently review that, and they'll apply their criteria whether or not we need to do, say, right-tum lanes or left-hrm lane extensions. We've done a preliminary review with them and met with them and provided them our preliminary data ald then tll be able to just kind of go over what those results are. But I think you may have seen - I car go over each of our access points here. On the Trail here with the site, this is - so to the west ofus is the Trio site and what we're looking to coordinate, and I've just shown this conceptually, is to consolidate our access. They're working on a separate access here, but the DOT would prefer to see those consolidated. So we would extend the left-in tum lane here, lengthen that tum lane up, and then provide access into our site. And what you can see is, we provide more depth, what we call throating there to allow the traffic to stack into our site, and we give our projected hrm movements, and this includes the Trio's traffic there as well that we have. So we'd have 85 left peak-hour tuming trips, and then for the right tum lane we'd have 68 trips and then a bunch oftrips exiting as well. So that's the one access. And then we've another right-in, right-out access on 4l as r.rell with Iesser trips. And then on Davis Boulevard, we have a rightin, righlout tJrere on kind ofthe -- would be the northwest comer ofthe site, and then on the east side ofthe site we'd have accesses in -- my next exhibit I'll show a little better what things look like offsite, and that's what this shows here. And I think I had one term; I called it dual left - it would be - it's - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You called it proposed dual opposing single left directional median. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. So what this is is it's an opposing left. What we're proposing here -- so we'd have a left into our site here, and then we'd have what we call in common terms is a pork chop, a divider island there, so tiat would prevent any left-outs of our site. But this would allow a left tum U-tum or potentially this other site, if it develops, would have a left-in to its site as well. But that's what we meant by dual opposing left tum lanes there, that that would be proposed - a proposed improvement we would put out there as well, and that's what's shown. So we'd have a left-in, a rightin, and a right-out there at that access point as well. And then we have this other left that would allow for U-tum movements there, too. And, again, there would be, Iike, a physical barrier there to prevent our vehicles fiom taking a left-out at that point as well. So we're consolidating the tums. In the analysis, when we've looked at these preliminary numbers, even though we see an interconnect here to the east -- and that will -- I would see would really be an important item, especially on Commercial Drive since it has a signal here on 41 as well. But we didnt count on that for the aaalysis that we've done. So conservatively we looked at all the trips coming in and out ofour site extemally at these four - four points for the project. Pase 49 of 67 February 15,2018 And then we made an assumption of consolidating our access with the Trio site, and we did include their traffic numbers in what we've had in terms of their design that they've had. So that's something we would look to coordinate with them and also with the DOT. This is probably, really, typically a lot more detail than we would normally do at this point in time, but I think it provides some help and guidance and understanding as far as that goes. So, in conclusion, again, the project is exempt from concurrency, but we did still look at concurrency nonetheless. And it's not an adverse traffic generator. The existing site drives are to be consolidated and interconnection proposed as well. And the DOT will review and permit the project connections on 4l and Davis Boulevard based on theirjurisdiction, and they'll determine the turn-lane requirements that we need to do for the project. Mitigation of impact is in the site improvements, the interconnection, and the payment of impact fees for the project as well. Okay. And with that, I'm available for any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. If you could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: - go back to the first picture, please. You said something about shared with Trio. Has Trio given you an okay that this is shared? And you said you combined the traffrc together? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How many trips did they have without this? MR. MULHERE: Atthat location. MR. TREBILCOCK: At that location? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh. MR.TREBILCOCK: Uh-huh. Goodquestion. Andlhavethatnumber. Ineedtojustruntomy TIS real quick, because I have it specifically written there in the diagrams. And maybe to answer your other question, we have been coordinating with them. There's no specific agreement. But the FDOT requires shared driveways or interconnection of the site, so we're looking to work together on this. And we've proposed this to really put everything on our site and provide that extra throating and stuffthat I think would help allow vehicles to get offthe roadway more efficiently. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: So that's -- and really kind of incumber -- incumbers our site, but I think it's beneficial from a traffic standpoint. Okay. So let me get these numbers for you. Sorry. And I have an exhibit that shows their - okay. Very nice. Okay. So from -- for that particular access - and this comes from numbers from their traffic study that they had prepared. Their site, say, for the 68 right-in movements, 15 of those would be from their site. For the 85 left-in movements, l5 of those would be from their site. And then for the outbound movements, 26 of those trips would be from their site of the 2l l. So we're, you know, more significant volume, but that's added into those total numbers that I provided to you there. Okay? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they're just - their total -- what was their total p.m. peak hour if it were a stand-alone at this point? MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't recall. I just have it for that particular access because they do have another access point where they're probably getting a lot of their trips from as well, so sorry I didn't have that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just a question. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it was good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you sure you're done now? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The2017 AUIR for -- well, first of all, for - MR. TREBILCOCK: This - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry? Page 50 of67 February 15,2018 MR. TREBILCOCK: This is 2016 is what this was done on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course, this is 2018 now. So my question is going to go to the practical effect rather than whether you -- you know, whether you'd fall within exemptions or what the situation was back when you did the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get that. On Davis, let's see, the p.m. peak between the Tamiami Trail and Airport is 1,550, and on Tamiami from Davis to Airport is 1,700. So taking your 875 - and I realize that it's not an equal amount on Davis and on the Tamiami, but for the ease of arithmetic for me, I split it in half. I've got 438 tips on one road and 438 trips on the other. ln essence, what that means is, is that you're raising -- again, if my math is correct - the actual conditions, the actual faffic conditions by 25 percent on Davis and by 20 percent on 41. MR. TREBILCOCK: The amount of our tips for that link on Davis would be 142 peak hour. Remember, we've got to do the peak hour and what we call peak direction as well, not -- we don't add both directions in there, because we're looking at a peak direction on the AUIR. So the number you had stated, we would add 142 to that, okay, and that would be the amount we're adding to that link. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Okay. And - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- so the balance of the 875 is on the other? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. Then they get distributed throughout. The 875 is really not 875. It's the adjusted numbers, because we have internal capture, because those trips aren't acfually occurring out there. But in terms of the other links -- and this is the peak direction because, remember, some of your trips, what they'll do, even on Davis, some of them are going to be going in the peak direction of the road, and then some will be going not nonpeak direction. So the stuffthat's in the nonpeak don't get added to that peak hour/peak direction trips, you know. So they tend to get reduced from that standpoint because you're really looking at where - the estimated peak. So your other peak directions, though, on Tamiami Trail, Davis to Airpo( that's 72 peak hour peak trips from the project and then on Tamiami Trail between the Goodlette and Davis section, that's I 19 trips we would be adding on the peak direction for that one, so... Okay? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure I understand. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. It's in the tables in Table 6 of the study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The questions -- I'm going to pose mine in a different manner, but I think it will answer yours. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: But I didn't want to -- yeah, I want to make sure everyone else has got - COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only point that I was making on this is that - maybe my numbers aren't exactly right, but the percentages are high what this is adding to these two streets. And this is only the beginning of a much larger project that is particularly going to affect Tamiami Trail, if you look at the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Only thing is, Ill just say the numbers you're adding are a bit on the high side, because if you look at - if you really look at moving to the more curren! say, AUIR numbers, you can use the numbers we provide in Table 6 and just add that - put those background volumes on there. But our percentages in terms of impacts -- now, see, in terms of level of service of the roadways -- are in the magnitud e of 2.5 to 5.3 percent level-of-service impacts is what we're looking at. So that wouldn't change no matter what AUIR we're doing. The AUIR just means tha! hey, these volumes, we're raising them up to this level here. Now, when we did these projections, because we're using the 2016 atthe time, we still did - we did a background traffic -- we'd raise the background taffic up a couple percent each year, or we'd look at the trip bank, and I'd add the trip bank numbers, the greater of the two, because we really want to look and, you know, to grow it to a reasonable high level. Page 51 of67 February 15,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll listen to your answer to the Chairman's question, but just the last thing I want to say is - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- I know you're in compliance with the various exemptions that are available - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - and the capacity numbers that exist at the present time; I see that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it seems to me that we need to at least take a count of what's going to be available for subsequent developers and developments. This is going to be more than just the tip of an iceberg at the mini-triangle, and that was the only point I was going to make. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else ontraffic before I -- okay, Norm -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let me back up on a couple things you said so I understand it a little bit better. The picture that's on there now, you said you're going to potentially have a joint agreement with the Trio project. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that you're going to move the left-hand turn lane down to line up with that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Currently their -- they have a submittal into the FDOT to have a turn lane -- their turn lane and access right here, and then they provide interconnection to us. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is theirs approved by the DOT? MR. TREBILCOCK: To my knowledge, it is not. In coordinating with the FDOT, they've gone through some reviews with them, but I don't believe they have an issuance of a permit at this point from the FDOT. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, if the DOT approves theirs -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: - then you wouldn't get one, would you, in that location? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it wouldn't be to that location; however, in terms of even our own coordination with them is we could modify theirs and -- what we were shown is theirs possibly going through, and then we would come back and extend the turn lane and make a similar connection, and then theirs would go away, and they would just have an interconnect to our site. That was the proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the DOT -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, they require an interconnection for them. So if they didn't -- weren't willing to do - to allow their access to, say, be displaced to our site, then they would just need to provide an interconnection from us to their site, and so then all our traffrc would stream into their site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then how would that change the road impacts in other issues that you've utilized in this TIS based on turn lane being in alignment with your site? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Good question. What we would do, then, in that case, we would have to look to modiff that turn lane or identifo if it has sufficient capacity or if we could go back to the west end of that turn lane and modi! it to get any extended queue that's needed to stack our site making a left into the site. And then the only realistic loss, and that's why our site plan made sense to me, is there's less throating that they can provide on their site for the traffic coming in. Bu! you know, the DOT would typically look to review and approve this. They may, though, you know, look at -- you know, they would probably encourage going to the design that we're providing here. Bu! you know, at the very leas! they'll require them to make an interconnection, because they wouldn't allow two accesses to be that close to each other. Page 52 of 67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Something you said earlier about the standards you used for this project, and that was that the pass-by rate and internal capture rate, the county formulas were what you used to -- does the DOT have formulas for pass-by and internal capture? MR. TREBILCOCK: When they look at it -- yeah, they'll independently look at it. What they'll typically, though, allow and accept is the county's, because the county values tend to be lower. The county's more conservative, and they'll accept them. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you used the more conservative numbers just in the case that the DOT would need it? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct exactly, for both agencies. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Then when the DOT requires deceleration lanes for right-ins, why didn't you use the more conservative approach to that? MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Supplying decel lanes for right turns into the project. MR. TREBILCOCK: Again, because based on the volumes and coordinating with the -- we're not within the threshold of requiring a turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAN: For the DOT? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But forthe countyyou are. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the county -- the county standard, though, doesn't apply here because it's a DOT roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, then neither -- but okay. But you just said you used the most conservative between the DOT's internal capture and pass-by in the county's, and you chose the county's because it is more conservative. But in this case you're picking and choosing to use the most nonconservative -- MR. TREBILCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- because the DOT is double what the county requires for the turn-lane access. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: I thought they were 80 and we're 40. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. And, actually - and I'll correct myself there, too, because when I had told you 40 for, say, a right turn lane, actually, for a divided highway in Collier Coun!, Collier County always warrants a right turn lane on a divided highway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's even more conservative. That's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: There's -- that's how they do it. But what you have to do is you have to respect the agency that has that facility, because if you look on U.S. 41 and, say, this section of 41, you'll see that the standard isn't to have turn lanes. Even within the city's boundaries, if you look at the length of U.S. 4l within the city, it's a small percentage of tum lanes that are there, and the - a good percentage of those that are there tend to be on public road connections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I can assume when you come back in two weeks you can show us somewhere else in the city where this kind of intensity is utilized and they're not using those right-turn decel lanes. I mean, because if you are, you better tell Eric and everybody else, because nobody knows anyvhere else in the county this occurs. MR. TREBILCOCK: I can tell you right now. Northbound on U.S. 41 at Golden Gate Parkway. Much more intense -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a road to road, though. MR. TREBILCOCK: Road -- well, that's a lot more intensive, and that is no right tum lane, no northbound right tum lane there. I mean, I'll just tell you right offthe bat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the traffic counts on that? That's Fleischmann Boulevard, two-lane road? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, not it would b CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, Golden Gate Parkway north of - Page 53 of67 February 15,2018 MR. TREBILCOCK: It would be U.S. 41 and Golden Gate Parkway. So we're talking six-by-six roadways. You know, so, you know, there's no northbound right turn lane there. If you look at -- along the 5.6 miles of U.S. 41 within the City of Naples, there's - I believe there's probably a dozen or so right turn lanes that exist, and there's probably 180 driveway connections along that roadway. So it's a small percentage. So we're consistent. And - but we would certainly follow anything. Because, again, when you look at an urban design, there's different philosophies. You know, Collier County is -- we're a very suburban design. So you want to promote higher -- you know, you want to promote the capacity and issues, but the converse is you have higher operating speeds. You're allowing the cars to exit and quickly get offthe roadway. In this mixed-use design, you're trying to create some more pedestrian-friendly environment and stuff So you actually create a little bit more friction on the roadway for folks to get off the roadway. So that's why you'll notice on Davis Boulevard between 41 and Airport Road, I believe there's just one tum - one right turn lane in that whole section of roadway for all those driveways along there. Similarly, along this section, too, there's minimal numbers of tum lanes that you see there. And, again, what you tend to do is have lower operating speeds. And that actually may be a part of the intention, so -- because when you create a lot of turn lanes and accesses, which I do like, you know, for capacrty of my mainline roadway, people will whip offthat roadway a lot quicker, you know. So we're trying to balance it but we'd certainly do the turn lanes if required by them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is this -- the roadways that were shown here intemal to the project are they considered driveways? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, yeah. They always consideq exactly, a driveway connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then my prior statement asking for where the intensity of interconnecting road -- interconnecting situations like this where we have a no right turn lane, and used Golden Gate Parkway as an example of this, one right-of-way to another right-of-way, do you have any instances where the intensity as high as this, 875, trips per day, where the right turn lanes don't exist or do exist -- don't exist where they have that kind of capacity? This is a - this is a substantial project. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Sure. No, I understand that. It does get distributed. So what I'd need to look at is really the amount of right-turning vehicles, which in this case would be 68 right-turning vehicles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's above the county's threshold but below the DOT's? MR. TREBILCOCK: Conect exactly. So what I could do is look for a situation where I'd estimate that to be the case, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thinkthat would help bufferyour argument -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - thatthis is acceptable. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. If we get in - let's get into your TIS, and this may start working towards Ned's question and hopefully help clarifi it. Table 3, which is on Page 8 of your TIS. Now, there was another plan that wasn't colored that seemed to have a perspective of this. I think it's the one below this. Maybe you could use that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Let me see. I can get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Over on the left, if you click on the left side, on No. 8. Do you see No. 8 over on the left? You're going - you're circling them. There you go. There you go. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thanks. I need help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you hit "play," you'll get a bigger picture, orjust open the full screen. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. There we go. CHAIRMAN STRAN: With all the calculations you do, boy, electronic, you and Bob are having fun today. MR. TREBILCOCK: And what was the page of the TIS you said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 8, and it's your Table 3. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with the roadway linlq Tamiami Trail East/U.S. 41. Page 54 of67 February 15,2018 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're talking about - that's from Goodlette Road to Davis Boulevard. You have entering southbound, 119. Where did -- how -- what entrance are we talking about on this plan? And where is the 119 in comparison to this table, Table 3? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. That would actually be the volume on the link, so that's not on this map itself. So from Goodlette to Davis is actually a link volume, and then that volume could potentially be split by the number of access -- you know, so that traffic is between Goodlette and Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this says p.m. peak hour, project traffic, so -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And it says entering. So it's not entering because it doesn't reach the project. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. I'm sorry. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it stops priorto Davis. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. That's linkage traffic that is going to enter tle project, okay. So in other words, that I 19 would be split between tlre -- the two -- let me see. The two -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Point to them on this map so we know what we're talking about. So you're going east on Tamiami Trail. You're - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, you're over here. You're offthe map a little bit - TI{E COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time. MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Raise your hands again like that. She was talking about that during break, so I have to -- you did just what you said you would do. Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Where's my little arrow at? Bob? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, he'll draw lines. Be careful. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So, Chairman Strain, when we talk about that entering volume, it's coming in that similar direction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- and it's on that link. And then what it will do is then that traffic will split. Some of it will be left-in and come in here. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's -- but you've got 2l I there, don't you? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. So that -- no. That's exiting. That's exiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Where's -- your entering is 85, right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to correlate this map to that table. So if the entering going southbound is 85 and you've got I19, what am I missing? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Then you have some -- remember, some of that traffic is going to take a left and come in offof Davis as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is southbound entering, so it didn't mean southbound. It could be eastbound. MR. MULFDRE: It's southbound on 41. You know, it would be southbound/eastbound. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So if we were to try to figure out how much that is, it would be I 19 less 85 but plus 35, or 70 up above. So you've got 70 up above, 85, it's 150 - that's more. You see your two right-ins on Davis? So if you're getting the traffic and you're pulling the traffic off southbound 4l to your two rights up on the north side and your one left on the south side, wouldn't you add those up to see if it matches the total traffic coming in? MR. MULHERE: It includes Trio. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, that includes Trio. So -- I'm sorry. Okay. So let's do that. No, we're good. Perfect. Thank you, Bob. Page 55 of67 February 15,2018 I'll show you something. Let's see if this all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do we get one of these tables to reflect Trio if that's going to have to -- if that's the only way we're going to be able to follow it? I mean, that doesn't -- why would you do this for your project, the faffic that flows through your project but only give us your project when it's -- you're going to be accepting both? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. What we did -- okay. So 85 - remember, that 85 is us and Trio. Trio is l5 of those trips. We're 70 ofthem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So that's why -- where you get the 85 from. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Uh-huh. And the 235's up top. There's 140. You've got 119. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Now, the 119 is for concurrency purposes, okay. So these numbers would be higher because I did not subtract out the pass-by because we're -- in this purpose in the site access, we're looking at trips, and I didn't deduct the pass-by. Now, we deduct the pass-by from the concurrency analysis, okay, because those are trips that are already on the roadway network. And so that's a lesser value. So to your poing though, like what we're getting is, say, 70 plus the 35 plus the 35, that's 140. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. MR. TREBILCOCK: But then when we deduct for the concurrency, that's where we get down to the 1 19. So that's how you get a total value. I can show you a map that kind of shows tha! if you want, the differences. Because I get your point you know, confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, it's kind of hard to follow your TIS when the maps that you provide us don't give you the numbers to follow. I think that's part of where probably Ned was trying to figure out how your numbers got there. For example, )ou've got on northbound l42Tamiami Trail East. Now, this is after they leave Davis and 4l , so the two have merged together, and you've got 142 going north, but you already got 211 coming out of the south side. I don't know what you're going to have going -- you've got 41 going west on the north side, so that's 252. So you're 10 off there. So is that - MR. TREBILCOCK: No. But you're going to lose -- some of those folks will be doing a u'ey at the intersection to come back the other direction, because we're not giving, like, a fulImedian opening there, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I said, there's 41 of them doing a u'ey. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, yeah, so... CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Your numbers still don't match up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right" but they wouldn't with the -- because what we're doing there is we're comparing the concurrency with the separate - this is a separate analysis. This is site access, okay. So when we do site access, we're not using the concurency data for that. We're using the values without the pass-by trips subtracted out. The concurrency analysis does subtract outthe pass-by values. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You know the term "rubber meets the road"? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one of these is rubber meeting the road? MR. TREBILCOCK: This is the -- site access is rubber meeting the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one: The picture in front of us? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The one in our Table 3? MR. TREBILCOCK: The site access would be the appendix you also have. In the study that we provided to you, there's appendices that give you all the tuming movements, and then we show the Trio traffic separately from ours. This has them all -- this has consolidated traffic but, again, there's two operations that we do. When we do concurrency, we subtract out intemal capture and pass-by, okay. When we do site access analysis, we're looking specifically at that location, and we do not subtract out the pass-by trips, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: When you talk about Davis Boulevard, U.S. 41 to Airport Road eastbound, Page 56 of67 February 15,2018 142 on exit, you show 203 or -- yeah, 206 on your two entrances up on top. Why is there a difference there then? Is that -- it seemed to be one of the simpler ones, but apparently it's not. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. No, exactly. Because there, again, when you're looking at Table 3, we're taking out the pass-by values. When we're looking at the site access, we're not subtracting out the pass-by values. Because what -- as you said, this is the rubber-hits-the-road drawing. And what the DOT wants and what the county wants is they want to see what are you guys doing at the access in terms of cars moving in and out. Now, again, this is more for a PUD planning study. When we actually submit for development order approval, that's when these get galvanized interms olapproved, and that's where we submit a permit to the FDOT, and they determine whether or not we should put a turn lane in here in that case, and look at, like, the case, like you said about Trio's. Hey, what if they don't combine there. So we'd look at that situation and determine where we're at and then make an appropriate decision on whether or not, say, a tum lane is needed there or not, you know, so... CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at that south entrance that has a left tum lane in -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; -- but look at the right turn lane. The right turn lane in is 68, it looks like. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Does that include Trio? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, it does. There were l5 of those trips. We're 53. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Trio's going to - if you had -- if that 68, because of a mixed change on Trio climbs to 80, you've got to put a right turn lane on your property? MR. TREBILCOCK: Not yet. It's 85, but, yeah, you know, so if we did - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, now it's 85? You told me yesterday - two days ago it was 80. MR. TREBILCOCK: Did I -- I thought it was 85. And there's actually a range that they use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we talked about it Tuesday, but that's -- if it's 85, then what happens if you hit 85 -- MR. TREBILCOCK: My apologies. Let me just get tha! because -- sorry about that. I have it in the report. I just - but if it reaches -- I'm sorry. I stand correct. You're right. It's 80 to 125 is the range that they use. What they do is they look at that range and they make a judgment of whether this should have a right turn. It's -- just because it hits 80 doesn't mean they say that you're going to have to do a right turn lane. They'll make a judgment call on that as the permitting agency in this area. But I'm sorry. But you were correct. It was 80; 80 to 125 is the range. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If Trio comes back in and says, you know, I've got three acres, and the project next door got 75 units per acre so, therefore, I can ask for 75 uniS per acre, and he doesn't want to -- and he wants to do a PUD and comes back in with225 units, how will that affect that 68 entry points? And, see, it's things like that -- MR. TREBILCOCK: That's a good point. CHARMAN STRAIN: We're not asking - apparently you're basically -- your position is you're not going to do tum lanes at this stage, but yet if you build your building, then we've got a constrained highway, we can't ever ask you for the tum lanes. So I'm trying to anticipate what the worst-case scenario is because, honestly, ifyour project gets approved, that's going to be a basis for other projects. And so the intensity could easily change on the Trio project as well as plenty of stuffto the east. MR. TREBILCOCK: No. You make a good point. And what we need to do when we're doing this is, these things go on together timing-wise. So what we would do -- when we get ready to go to the next stage to actually go to construction, we need to veriff that - whether that tum lane is needed, and then that would cause an adjustment as -- if that turn lane is necessitated. So that's a good point you make. So we don't work in vacuums in terms of the different disciplines that we're working on this project with. And it's just understood that we've got to work with the DOT. So that's why we simultaneously did coordinate with them on, hey, here's the preliminary layout of the project, and this is even the consolidation Page 57 of 67 February 15,2018 concept for this other, bu! you know, you make an excellent point that, hey, what if that adjacent project gets more intensive because we are doing a shared drive. So we want to make sure that we're working with them, and then we can accommodate that furn lane. And we'd need to. We'd have to, to your point. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And the only this is, your buildings are built preffy close to the road, so I don't know how you'd give up that much room and still provide sidewalks from the cross-sections you showed, which means by using that entry you're restricting the development on the project to the west, because if they do too much that triggers the right turn lane, you can't put it in because it's a constrained roadway. That's going to present a series of problems, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Not necessarily. I believe there was a little bit more room on that side of our project. I think the constraint, 1zou're right, is on Davis Boulevard. There's a lot - there's a lot less buffer distance there. Bu! you know, depending on that requirement, it may or may not. And, again, that agency is key, because, again, they do have a range of that, because what they do look like is, you know, a big part of it is driver expectation. And along this segment of roadway, the series of driveways, you don't have right turn lanes, so there isn't quite that same expectation. And you -- you know, you slip in a turn lane -- you know, again, deceptively, we think we're improving safety and operations but not necessarily always, so... CHAIRMAN STRAN: Let's move -- MR. MULI{ERE: I just want to - for the record, Bob Mulhere. I just want to clarifo this Trio project isn't three acres; it's 1.99. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I thought you said three earlier. MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's two acres. It's 150 -- MR. MULI{ERE: So any - God bless anybody who wants to go through the process we went through for the last year-and-a-half of Comp Plan amendment and LDC amendment and MPUD rezone and come in and ask for anything they want. But that's not what they've chosen to do at this point in time. They've gone through the by-right allowed SDP process and maximized their intensity on that site, which they should be able to do. So, you know, we're trying to work with them, and they're working with us. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Bob, all I'm trying to do is find out if you guys are trying to not provide the right turn lanes, that we've got a reasonable expectation that they're not going to - that the situation's going to stay as you say it is, and it's not going to get worse. That's what I'm worried about. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand. And, again, that's what we've looked to do, and that's why we coordinated with the agencies to determine what requirements they would anticipate, and that's why we do that preliminary coordination with them. CHAIRMAN STRAN: On Page 10, did you look at that discrepancy I pointed out when we met on Tuesday? And did you find a resolution to it? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, thank you. What it was is the upper portion, that's reflective of FDOT data that they use. So that was -- the intention there was just to show that the DOT's data is showing a decline in their ADT, but their - so their dataset would be slightly different than the city's. And so the lower table is city collected ADT data. So what we did, though, when we did the concurency analysis, we used the city's values that actually were -- resulted in a higher. But the purpose of that paragraph above was just to demonstrate that in fact, there was a negative in the traffrc growth during that period of time, although we still did a positive traffic growth in the future. So that's the reason for the difference, so, you know, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 13, your site access tum lane - by the way, Ned, did the explanation of that traffrc flow on those streets get to your question, or did it confuse it even more? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Confused it somewhat more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. Well, that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I think what happens is your documents provide a lot of information, and for those of us that aren't trained in traffic analysis, I think it's hard to understand how the Page 58 of67 February 15,2018 numbers match up when you use different numbers on some of your renderings versus the tables you produce. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, I see your point. I do. I do understand that. And I'm -- you know, I can adjust to clarifr that for you. Again, they have different purposes, but I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your site access tum analysis, the first paragraph on Page 13 under that header says, connections to the site are proposed as follows. Can you walk us through those connections and show us where they are? I think the proposed dual left directional median is the one I'm kind of wondering where that is. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Here we go. Connection to the site. Okay. So the north entrance, that's -- so this one, that's a right-in, right-out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Directional left. MR. TREBILCOCK: Directional -- oh, I'm sorry. Rightin, right-out, directionalmedian left-in, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the one that's going to have an increased stacking lane to accommodate both projects, assuming you use that common entrance. MR. TREBILCOCK: Absolutely. So the left-in that we're showing, that's 85 trips, and that's us and Trio, the right-in is 68 trips, and then the right-out is the 2l 1 trips. Okay. So that's that one. Then the southern access, that's down here, all righ! and that's just a right-in, rightout. So we're showing l7 right-in trips - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: - and2l right-outtrips there. Okay. Then on Davis Boulevard, the westem access, here, is just a rightin. That's the 35, and then the right-ou! 103 trips. Okay. And then the eastern one, this is a right-in, the 35; right-ou! is 103. And this is where I had my language a little bit that would be -- it would be opposing left so -- oh, what did we do there? CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you're not going to have dual lefu. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correc! yeah. It's dual opposing lefu. I'm sorry. Like right now there's no left there, so we'd put in a left-in - a left here for a U-fum, you see, and then we've got a left into our site, and then we have, like, a pork chop, so it's opposing lefu. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. But there's no dual lefts? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's what I was -- so that's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: You're right, yes. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's what I was trying to get at. MR. TREBILCOCK: I think my language is inconect there the way I presented thaq yep. But they're opposing lefts, like you said. Okay. So that's 13. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And you did -- in the other analyses that go on, you actually get into the fact you don't believe the dedicated .ight turn lanes are warranted at the various locations, and we've already talked about that. That's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. That's using DOT -- and, again, this is planning level, so we're not -- and we're not saying they won't be. It's -- they get finalized at the point of site development approval. But we wanted to give you conceptually we're not meeting their warranty. And so it just kind of gives you an idea thag hey, it's not necessary here, and consistent with the other projects along the east corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And now I'd like to take a look at the questions posed by the city. Have you -- you're familiar with them, I believe? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes,I am. CHAIRMAN STRAN: They just completed their mobility study, and this is where they're talking about -- oh, this is talking about the dual lefts, I believe. It's the first one that - the city urges - strongly urges the county to apply a conservative approach to the traffrc analysis to minimize the chance of level of Page 59 of67 February 15,2018 service failure at any point during the year ofthe project. Yeah, it's the issue with the right turn lanes. We've already kind of talked about that, so - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sidewalks we talked about while you were on vacation this morning. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And then the -- that's -- the second part there, that's about the dual turn lanes. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: YCP. MR. TREBILCOCK: Andthen aboutthe - CHAIRMAN STRAN: The transit bus, we talked about that. The guy was here this morning. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay, good. That covers it, then, I think. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so. Just let me make sure we've got it all. Okay. I think we have. Anybody else have any questions that they'd like to ask? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a comment, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. Yes, ma'am. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: When you - not knowing the Trio project and this and everything else, to me it looked like a shell game. I mean, you're just kind of moving things around, and trying to understand this is very difficult, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's why I was wondering if Trio -- and you said, "I combined them." We didn't really know that. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand. I don't show it here, but actually in the appendix I did - and I'll look to clear that up for you-all. I understand. It's tough for you because there's a lot of technical information we're throwing, and I understand your points. You're trying to use some of the data over here that really isn't the same as over here. So, you know, maybe what we do is create an exhibit so you guys can add the numbers up better and they can make more sense to you. I get your points, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you do any work in the City of Naples? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I misspoke when I looked at the first question they asked. It was on a separate email by itself, and I'll read most of it to you. There are concems as to the density of the project and traffic impacts, particularly upon U.S. 4l and intersecting streets within downtown Naples. The typical method is to consider a new project for the average time of year or l00th, 200th highest hour. To do this, standard adjustments are made. The city just completed a downtown mobility study that determined seasonal traffrc conditions were 20 percent higher than FTOD (sic) standards. So the city, for planning purposes, has been looking at peak season and maintaining levels of service during that particular time. Are they doing that currently? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, they are not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: This is -- again, that was a particular study, a particular snapshot but their Comp Plan doesn't require that analysis. And you can see he's not saying they're doing that there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. Perfect. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to understand. So this TIS that you've done for us is comparable to the type of TIS you do for the city then? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So if - technically, then, we're following their standards? MR. TREBILCOCK: We're consistent with them, definitely, yes. Page 60 of67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That's important. MR. TREBILCOCK: h my opinion and belief, exactly. They - they'll tend to use -- just so you understand, they'll use, like, two-way traffrc, and that's why I was splitting it to do, like, a single directional. But it's the same concept and the same levels of stuff. And, you know, they had that particular mobility study, but that's not -- hasn't been adopted into their Comp Plan in terms of how you do level-of-service analysis at all, you know. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I'm glad you showed up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're confusing, but you helped. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. And I'll look to clean up a couple of items that you-all have said, too, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we are going to MR. TREBILCOCK: My TIS will be about 10 pages longernow, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: We are going to come back in two weeks to finish this up because we were given some new information that the vision -- the new vision statement that's probably going to have to have some regulatory language added to make sure we're getting that, but that's all the stuffwe're going to probably work on over the next couple weeks and come back and finally discuss it and finish it the first meeting in March, the way it looks. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay? MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from staffs perspective, I think that's it. There's no - okay. Now, do we have any registered public speakers, Ray? And then the public speakers, for those of you that are patiently waiting here, the room is just full. Feel free to address any of the three issues that we've -- in discussions today. Go atread, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Katie Cole. MS. COLE: Good afternoon. My name's Katie Cole with the law firm of Hill, Ward, Henderson, 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 800, Clearwater, Florida. So I appreciate your time today. I represent Crown Castle International, who is the tenant of the county's for the wireless telecommunications tower that is on site on this property. And there was a question by Mr. Dearbom earlier about that tower being relocated. And the staffreport indicates it's being relocated. Early last year, Crown Castle began discussions with tlre county about the county's proposed termination of Crown Castle's lease. There has been no agreement to date to terminate that lease. So when we found out about this hearing and that the rezoning was moving forward on Sunday night when we happened to be perusing the agendas, it obviously caused concern, because the MPUD and the Growth Management Plan will create a nonconforming use for the tower. And while there are provisions in the wireless communications code that allow for some changes in addition of antennas and modification of antennas to be made, the age of this tower sometimes requires structural changes, which is clearly prohibited in the nonconforming use provision of the code. So while the lease has certain provisions about the landlord preceding with a rezoning, which would negatively impact the tenant -- and those are discussions that we'll have outside of this arena -- without waiving any of those rights, I would respectfully request that this board recommend including in the list of permitted uses a provision to allow this tower to remain as a conforming use temporarily until the lease expires or until it is terminated by mutual agreement as provided for in the lease. So - and I do know there are a lot of other lease negotiation discussions that have occurred where I have not been privy to. I know Mr. Starkey has been. There is a disagreement about what the appropriate buy-out should be. But in light of this, my client did send communication to the county yesterday, Tuesday, Page 6l of 67 February 15,2018 reflecting the fact that Crown Castle's very willing to enter into an agreement to terminate to facilitate this redevelopment. It just needs to be an appropriate number. And we look forward to continuing those conversations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you mentioned possibly adding this as a temporary permitted use by right to avoid the nonconformity? MS. COLE: If that would be the appropriate place to do it, yes. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I'm just thinking there might be another option. If the issue is that under the nonconforming standards you can't structurally alter the tower, maybe we just need to look at a deviation to that nonconforming standard. So should things like that be needed while that tower is still there and not moved, something like -- if that's the appropriate way to handle it. Do you have know -- any ideas, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. In the past when PUDs are proposing new uses different than the base zoning allows and the base zoning uses are in place, we've had a provision to allow those base zoning - existing base zoning uses to exist until such time as there's a change in ownership and/or that the building permits are being issued for the new use, and then there would be a relocation or demolition of those old existing uses. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I think what they're saying, though, is they can't -- in order for them to move and relocate, it's going to take a certain amount of time possibly and processes to get there. So if we just provide some language that says that they have to move when the new buildings are ready to be built and they've not got a new place to go, that might be problematic then, so... MR. BELLOWS: Well, a change of ownership, that would mean they've divested their interest in the property. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unless -- a change of ownership forthe project would mean that it's just assignable. They probably have a lease that's assignable, and that would go with the properfy. MR. BELLOWS: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know what needs to be worked out, but between now and the next time we come back, I ask that you get together whatever parties are involved and let's get something included in the next rendition that comes to us on the first meeting in March, which is March lst and try to resolve the issue. MS. COLE: Yes. We would like to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate you highlighting it to us. We'll do what we can. Anybody? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Cole, I read in the materials that we were provided a reference to another communications tower southeast of this location on Kirkwood, I believe. Is that your client's leasehold down there, too? MS. COLE: It is, yes, sir. And that is actually the tower that is being proposed to be reconstructed to accommodate the tenants that are on this tower. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. Would combining the communications capability of both towers to one location, in any respect, degrade service to the residents? MS. COLE: Potentially, yes, and I believe that's the crux of the negotiation issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Wouldn't you need the fee simple owner of the propefty to agree and acquiesce as to what you're asking for as far as the rights and use of the property? CFIAIRMAN STRAN: That's what we're -- that's what they're going to -- supposed to come back with. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the county -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the mike, Heidi. MS. ASFION-CICKO: The CRA is the owner, the Collier County CRA, and it's under contract by the applicant. MS. COLE: The county CRA is the owner of the property that consented -- I presume, provided Page 62 of 67 February 15,2018 owner's consent to this application. They are also the landlord and have obligations under the lease to Crown Castle. So they have two roles in this. MR. EASTMAN: One of which, I think, would be to request what the future zoning should be as opposed to the tenant doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean as far as the -- right now the future zoning allows the communications tower, and I think what we're saying is the tower owners will get together with the future owners of the property once the contracts are completed and arrange for having language added to the PUD, either a permanent or temporary basis, for communication towers to be there. I think that's the solution, right? MR. MULIfiRE: Well, actually before the contracts are completed. We actually need to resolve this issue now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that requires the current owner to be part of that process. MR. EASTMAN: Amen. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It will have to be resolved in one of two ways. One is that the tower is allowed as an interim permitted use until a building permit is issued for the mini-triangle project or, when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, the issue needs to be resolved and they have to have a termination agreement that both parties are in agreement to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how long is the remaining time on the lease? MS. COLE: 2024. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You guys are going to move, I hope, faster than that. Is that -- you're in one piece of the overall picture. So maybe that piece could be the last phase instead of an early phase, and that would help provide some extra time. MS. COLE: I think from a timing standpoinl I became engaged in the project to facilitate the relocation and the permitting of the new tower. Unforhrnately, in Octobel communications at -- there was a meeting with Crown Castle and the county in October, and since then -- at that meeting, the county was unhappy with Crown Castle's financial request, and until this week there had not been additional communication from the county to Crown Castle about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Jerry? MR. STARKEY: Jerry Starkey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you swear in? MR. STARKEY: No,I haven't been swom in. (The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affrmative.) MR. STARKEY: So we've been dealing with Crown since we began and notified Crown at the time that we won the RFP. We've been in discussions with the county. Nick Casalanguida has been representing the county, the CRA, and Crown, and ourselves as the contact purchaser. We're really -- Crown owns the site on Kirkwood that they would like to move the tower to. The county has worked with Crown to facilitate a re-permitting or permitting of a new tower that would replace the existing tower at Kirkwood and the tower at the triangle, and we simply are negotiating the economics. And so the parties have been engaged. It got offtrack a bit with the hurricane because of the county's -- was really focused on a lot of other things a few months later. But I think we will reach an agreement or buy subject to it and figure out what to do later. But I think the goal is to reach an agreement. And I don't -- I don't see any reason why we can't. But that's not to say, you know, we agree to the numbers, because there is an economic disconnect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And my concern from the land use perspective is that by the next meeting you at least reach some agreement to provide something so that however this tower works out in the meantime, it's not got a problem. MR. STARKEY: Right. And I think that her -- excuse me. The request for a temporary ability to change the structure or whatever, you know, probably is fine with us. First we've heard of the request, but that would enable the tower to stay while we move forward and then, ultimately, hopefully we reach an agreement on the economic relocation. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We'll look forward tothe lst. Thankyou. Page 63 of 67 February 15,2018 MS. COLE: Thankyouvery much. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, sir. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you use the word "code," are you talking about the Collier County tower code? MS. COLE: Yes, sir, and the nonconforming use code. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does that tower code still require ayearly, or every two years, a formal report to be submitted on the status of the tower? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I don't think we took that out. Remember we added it when that one tower collapsed, and I don't think it's been taken out. Do you know, Ray? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you bring a copy of the latest report? MS. COLE: I will certainly find out if that's been recorded and what it is, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they should be filed with us as required. So somewhere, if that exists, we should have it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Even if it was, like, eight years ago? MS. COLE: I'll request it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, there's only one other person sitting in the audience that's not part of the applicant's team. If tlrere's no other speakers, if anybody else would like to speak on this issue, please come on up. There isn't any, so with that, I think we're finished up here, Bob. Is there anything you want to wrap up before we go into a continuance discussion real quick? MR. MULHERE: I just want to express our appreciation for the time that you've put into this. We understand there's a lot of issues and moving parts, and we're anxious to continue to work with you to resolve this. We'll be prepared with those issues for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And any comments from the Planning Commission before we -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The overriding concem that I mentioned at the beginning of my comments had to do with achieving a sense of what I believe are the expectations that this would be -- and lll use the expression without asking that it be put into the ordinance -- but high-end first-class. And I can see myself getting more comfortable with all of the uses that we may end up approving if there's stronger language of some kind that points to an objective that fulfills the expectations for a premiere, or whatever you want to call ig a leading kind of a development. And I would suggest to you the following. And I took the first sentence of your Exhibit A, and I rewrote it to make it sort of an undertaking. And it would read, the mini-triangle MPUD will be an atfractive catalyst project designed to spark further redevelopment in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. And I don't think that's as strong as first-class and the other, high-end. But I believe when you word it in terms of an undertaking, it would give subsequent people something to hang their hat on. And so -- MR. MULFIERE: We don't disagree with that. That's absolutely our intent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you accept that language? MR. MULI{ERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, without -- I mean, that's preffy ambiguous language in regards to who can interpret it. And the bottom line is, if we don't attach it to regulatory standards, it's meaningless. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I am wanting to do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAN: StAN? Page 64 of 67 February 15,2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's the Potter Stewart definition of attractive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the what? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Potter Stewart definition of attractive. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You know it when you see it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know it when I see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we had - before we moved forward, I would want to -- I have to echo what Ned just said, because I mentioned to you guys Tuesday, the big elephant in the room for me is you've got to somehow convince us you're going to do what you said you're going to do. And normally we attach those kinds of drawings to the PUD, and we lock it in. And it doesn't mean it's conceptual and you can go from the stories and buildings you show down to a -- you know, an apartment building with a bowling alley. I keep saying that because that's still some of the uses. So we've got to get beyond that, and that's what we're looking for on the firs! so... MR. MLILI{ERE: And we attempted to do that by suggesting there be at least two multi-story buildings. You know, our intent is to build three. But we do need some flexibility. Those are conceptual. We might be able to accomplish everything in two buildings. And the third building, whether it gets built or no! we don't know, or maybe it's seven stories or eight stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we're making progress, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yeah,l agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just need to get it tightened up so that when stafflooks at it it's not ambiguous. Because they're going to look at it black and white. You can do this or can't do this. MR. MULIIERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I just want to get there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My language is not a total fuq but I earnestly hope to see it in two weeks. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I just want -- I have the same concems with the matrix, conversion matrix. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked. COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Because of what it could end up being if something happens. You could have workforce housing to an unlimited number of dwelling units and a car dealership, or -- and that's not -- MR. MULI{ERE: We're subjectto - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No one expects that. No one expects that, really. There are - people along the Trail in some communities are looking for a high-end destination, and that's what they think - that's why nobody's in here, because I don't think they understand what could happen if they actually read this. MR. MULI{ERE: That's what we're going to build. You know, you have to think, there's a lot of zoning documents out there, and this is always a challenge is ensuring that the intent is what you get. I understand that. In this one, I think we've gone fuither than anybody has to ensure that - what you're going to get. You know, you have significant architectural standards that will apply to us. Okay. We haven't got there yet. I hearthat. I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you haven't gone further than anybody has. We, a lot of times, have diagrams, concept plans, pictures like you're showing as backup to what the developer says he's going to do. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and that's what we submitted. We have those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but your language doesn't match that. That's the piece. That's what - so generally we'll attach that stufi see Exhibit A or something like tha! and it will be something that's reflective of what we expect the project to appear like. We're not there yet. That's the piece that I think is the problem. And I think you can work on that and we can get there, but it doesn't -- MR. MULHERE: But you generally have to be consistent with those concept plans that you see. You generally have to be consistent with that. Yeah, you can change the designs - Page 65 of67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But look at your generalities: 100 units or 30,000 square feet. That's a far cry from what was on those plans. That will never get us that picture. MR. MULI{ERE: That's about 50 percent, because when we went in, it was 200 units and 74,000 square feet, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus the hotel and plus, plus. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With tha! is there a - first of all, Bob, as the representative, you're requesting a continuance to March lst? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to move this to March lst. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion and seconded. Discussion: I would like to make sure that at that date we wrap it up for both consent and the final hearing so that the - this developer's not put offfrom his date with the Board of County Commissioners. So I just wanted to add that, because that will be the intent. Unless something radically goes wrong, that's what it will end up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ordinarily consent as I have learned, is limited to examining the proposed fixes to issues that have been raised. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that going to be the limit of the scope of two weeks from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. What Im saying is that we don't add another meeting after that two weeks later for consent. We'll wrap it all up at one meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as long as everybody's in agreement, is there a motion subject to what we just talked about? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This applies to all three? CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. All those in favor, signi$ by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 (sic). And, yes, Stan, it's for all three. We didn't vote on anything -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: 5-0. Oh, that's right. Patrick left. 5-0. Thank you. And that takes care ofthat. Thank you for your endurance today. MR. MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business, no old business. There's -- anybody left in the public to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see none, hear none, and with that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. Page 66 of 67 February 15,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Made by Diane. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Seconded by Ned. All in favor, signifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: We're out of here. Thank you. *:F****,F There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at2:22 p.m. COLLIER COLINTY PLANN ING COMMIS SION ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board o, 3 - , f - t& , as presented / orascorrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page67 of67