Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/21/2019March 21,2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 21,2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain KarlFry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 52 March 21,2019 PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Mike. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the March 21st 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: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan and Patrick have notified me they had other engagements they had to go to, so they're excused absences today. And for today's meeting, I scheduled other things to happen this morning, so I'll be leaving at break. I didn't expect this to take too long. So whether we're through it or not, I still have those other commitments now. So I will leave at breaktime. Which takes us to the addenda to the agenda. Are there any changes? And, staff, we've got two items. One's going to be continued when we get to it. MR. BOSI: No other changes, Chair. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences; our next meeting is April4th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'm the only one. I will not be here. MR. SCHMITT: I will not be here. I've got to go to Texas that week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll be on vacation that week, so Karen will be running the meeting on April4th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going on the 4th. Uh-oh, Bosi's going to stack the deck. I can see him now. MR. BOSI: Yeah, we have two petitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I usually don't announce until I'm sure the decks can't be stacked, and there's only two relatively minor petitions. MR. BOSI: Yeah. The 10-year water supply. It's the adoption. You've already heard it once at transmittal. And then the Esplanade PUD amendment; relatively minor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, excuse me. Before we get into our agenda item, I wanted to Page 2 of 52 rt March 21,2019 make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was on approval of minutes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go ahead. You were thinking -- did you want us to bring up something now or before we get into that agenda item? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just before we get into the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go through the rest of the agenda first then. Approval of minutes. We were electronically distributed February 21st,2019, minutes. Any changes, or is there a recommendation of approval? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Made by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMTAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. That takes us to the BCC report and recaps and, Mike, I think you mentioned there isn't any. MR. BOSI: There was no land-use items on the l2th agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And ltemT is chairman's report. I've got something new necessarily to talk about today. 8 is consent agenda. We have no consent items. The first public hearing is a request to continue. Is it this item you want to talk about, Ned, or the next one? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, sir. It's really neither one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, what did you want to mention? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. On Monday the City Council at the City of Naples unanimously voted to authorize the city's Planning Advisory Board to reach out to us and propose a joint workshop. And I know that Mike has been contacted by his counterpart, Robin Singer, within the city, and that the matter has to go to our BCC, of course, but I wanted to let this commission know that that's in process. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody want to know this board's position on it, or is that just something the city's deciding to go forward with and - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the city has asked for such a meeting. I think it would be entirely proper for us to weigh in. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, then at some point we ought to add it to a discussion under new business for that possibility, but definitely not until after the Board of County Commissioners even wants to have that a consideration, since they operate under a completely different code than we do. I'd sure want to understand the parameters, and I'd like to see the Board of County Commissioners know what the agenda's about before we go into things that are political and not related to this board. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Yeah. That was my question, to know if there was any particular issues that they wanted to discuss at the joint meeting and they gave any indication of reasons for having the joint meeting -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I can tell you what I -- MR. EASTMAN: -- specifically. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I can tell you what I know; that the Planning Advisory Board has, for a long time, wanted to become more involved in the subject of the planning. About 90 percent of their work is rezone work. And they're aware that we do much more along the lines of planning, and I think they would like to learn Page 3 of 52 D t March 21,2019 more about how we do what we do and how we approach the subject, and I also know specifically that they would like to have perhaps, well -- a presentation from our chairman, perhaps an abbreviated one. I think your regular one goes about an hour. But they are aware -- they've seen your You Tube presentation and would welcome an opportunity to hear from you on general subjects ofplanning. The other point that I think is of interest to them is that, as it happens, the so-called "D" downtown redevelopment district of the City of Naples almost butts up directly to our Gateway Triangle redevelopment district. And so there's a question whether there could be some positive outcomes from collaboration as we continue to plan for what is to happen in that area. That's about all I know about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I did see an email that I forwarded to Mike, and it was copied to me by somebody. And I suggested that we not go there until the Board acknowledges that's where they want us to go. I'm real concerned about political agendas that are outside the purview of this panel, and I don't want to get into that on a joint meeting in any possibility whatsoever. So from that perspective I'm concerned. And I do appreciate the other panel wanting to talk with us but, again, I want to make sure the elected officials are comfortable with that before we go there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. I think there's a sense on the part, certainly, the leadership of the City of Naples that it would behoove all of us, both the city and the county, to cooperate and collaborate more; that there would be positive outcomes for each jurisdiction in doing that. And I think this was a first step -- or seen by them as a first step ofhaving greater collaboration. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Was there any thought that just the two boards ought to meet together? COMMISSIONER FRYER: They did last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, they're the ones that set the policies, standards, and endorsements that the rest of us have to follow. We certainly can't do that. And I've always looked for the direction from the Board to move forward with what this panel does. And I was a little dismayed that it started without the two boards talking about it first before it even got down to our level, but we'll have to see where that goes when our board discusses it, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, all I'm doing is reporting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only comment is before such a meeting take place, there's clearly defined goals and objectives, and those goals and objectives would have to be approved by the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. And we also ought to look at scheduling it right now. We're going into our offseason, and everybody in a couple weeks is going to be leaving town. For those people that are interested in the kind of subjects that would be brought up, we might want to consider a time when they're here. Maybe after September, in the fall, but that's something we can talk about in scheduling. ***So with that, we'll move on to our first advertised public hearing, and this is a request for a continuance. It's 9A1. It's Item PL20180002552, and it's a 10-year water supply that they're requesting a continuance to April 4th. Is there a motion to approve that continuance? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Joe, seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? Page 4 of 52 March 21,2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. ***The next item and the only item remaining on the agenda is Item 9A2. It's the amendment to the Collier County Redevelopment Plan. This item is actually a review of the visioning statement that was just recently completed or drafted for the Immokalee CRA -- the entire CRA, which does include Immokalee and Bayshore, although most of it pertains to Bayshore. So with that in mind, I'd like to ask our staffto give us some kind of guidance as to what this document does or does not do and what we're really here to be looking at today in relationship to this document. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. Deborah Forester, the director of the CRA, will be, as I understand it, making the presentation this morning, and she can walk through the statutory provisions within Chapter 163.360 of Florida Statutes, and I believe it's her intent to walk through it step by step. That statutory provision identifies what a redevelopment plan is, what it is to include, what it is to address. The point I wanted to make right up front to the Planning Commission is that a redevelopment plan is not a regulatory document. Most of the actions that this body are involved in pertains to land development petitions, whether it's a rezone petition, a variance, Comprehensive Plan amendment, Land Development Code amendments. All of those are regulatory in nature. A redevelopment plan is not. And it may provide the support information that would -- that would support an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan andlor Land Development Code, but in and of itself a redevelopment plan is not a regulatory document. I just wanted to stress that point. CFL{IRMAN STRAIN: And then just to clarifu, then, so the language we're seeing here broken down in like a policy format, like 5.3 . I or something like that, that is not the language that necessarily is going to find its way into the GMP. MR. WEEKS: Not necessarily. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And at the time the language gets into a codified situation for the GMP and then subsequent to the -- subsequently to the LDC, we will see that language in the normal routine process that we do to review such language? MR. WEEKS: Correct, as part of an advertised public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this language we're seeing today is not binding? MR. WEEKS: Correct. Now, one -- the very first item under Chapter 163.360(2), I think it is, is that the redevelopment plan must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and that would be -- to me that seems to be the most specific point for the Planning Commission to address. Again, as Deborah walks through, you may have other comments or questions about the statutory provisions, but that's the very first one, and that's the one that is paramount, and that's the one that this body is used to dealing with in looking at plan amendments and all sorts of zoning and other Land Development Code petitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you review this plan, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: What's your officialtitle? MR. WEEKS: Growth Management manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how long have you been doing that? MR. WEEKS: Under that -- under various title -- I've been here about 33-and-a-half years, about 25 or so of that -- 28 of that has been in Comprehensive Planning. So I've been involved in Comprehensive Plan reviews of both amendments and petitions for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for about 28 years. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Were you involved in the Comprehensive Plan changes that resulted in the original 2000 visioning statements that the CRA started with? MR. WEEKS: I had some peripheral involvement in the redevelopment plan itself. I was directly involved in the amendment to establish the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle overlay, and I had some involvement in the Immokalee Master Plan back in l99l as well. Page 5 of 52 March 2lr20l9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I noticed the staff report. So just not to be too redundant, but you and, I'm assuming, Mr. Bosi reviewed this; you both signed it. So that means you find it consistent with your history and experience and expertise with the Growth Management Plan? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of David? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's making the presentation on the part of this plan then? MR. BOSI: I believe the CRA executive director, Ms. Deborah Forester. MS. FORESTER: Good morning. For the record, Deborah Forester, Community Redevelopment Agency director. Thank you for giving us the opportunity today to present to you this amendment to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Plan. As David mentioned, I wanted to just walk through a little bit of what the statute requires. So we are under Chapter 163, Part III, which is the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969, and it has been amended, of course, over the course ofthe last 30, 40 years. But the CRA's intent is to address blight, and blight is defined in that chapter, and it regards a number of factors, and those factors can include inadequate infrastructure, such as sewer and water capacity, lack of sidewalks. It can also talk about lot sizes that are not appropriate to the current standards today. So what we are required to do under the statute is to create a finding of necessity. So back in 199912000, the Board of County Commissioners directed staffto look at the CRA statute and to see if our two areas qualified for the finding of necessity. The statute also provides guidance on what has to be included in the redevelopment plan, and it also provides authority for a Community Redevelopment Agency. It also identifies what the duration of a CRA can be. And, currently, under the current statute, our CRA, because it was established prior to 2002, could remain in existence for up to 60 years, and that purpose is to use a mechanism called tax-increment financing that some of you may be aware of, and that helps to fund the projects that are identified in the redevelopment plan. So let's talk a little bit about Collier County's Community Redevelopment Agency. Because we're not a charter county we can only have one agency, but we can have several component areas. So back in 2000 the Board adopted by resolution the "Finding of Necessity Report" which is included as an appendix in this amendment. It also created the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency which, by statute, is a separate legal entity, but the Board of County Commissioners sits as the governing board. It also established local advisory boards so that they could make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the CRA on how to proceed with implementation of the redevelopment plan. And today I have several members from our advisory committee in the Bayshore/Gateway area. I want to thank them for coming today and also for their involvement over the past year on looking at the amendment, providing input and direction to staffand our consultant. And then, again, we adopted by resolution the redevelopment plan back in 2000. And we have Section 4 which deals with the Immokalee redevelopment area, and Section 5 which deals with the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. Back in 2000 this plan was presented to the Planning Commission. You-all at that time found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And at that time, according to statute, it could have a duration of 30 years. You can allow for an additional duration if you do an amendment to that plan or a modification to that plan. So just briefly how TIF works, back in 2000 the Board also adopted an ordinance, Ordinanc e 2000-42, which established the trust fund. And atthat time the trust fund established our base tax value. So that was geared on the tax value back in 2000 for Immokalee and for the Bayshore/Gateway CRA. Every year that incremental increase from that base value gets put into a trust fund. We have two separate accounts. Immokalee has their funds, and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle has their funds. And this chart just shows you the increase in tax increment that's been received over the past 18 years. Page 6 of 52 March 21,2019 So what can tax-increment funds be used for? One, they have to be identified in the plan and, two, they can be both capital and noncapital. So for capital, of course, we have the infrastructure. We can do beautification landscaping; we can also do public amenities and facilities. Noncapital, we can pay for staff, administrative costs. We can do plans and studies to get to the point that we're actually doing infrastructure improvements, and we can also provide grants to both residential and commercial properfy owners within the CRA, again, to eliminate blighted conditions. So today we're here to talk about the amendment to the overall Collier County redevelopment plan. The proposed changes, Section I are basically cleanup because we have not done an amendment to this plan since 2000. We also recognize that the Immokalee boundary expansion that occurred in 2004, those maps were not updated into the redevelopment plans. We're taking this opportunity to include that boundary expansion map in an updated Future Land Use Map for the Immokalee area. And we're also suggesting that the duration of the CRA be extended to another 30 years, which currently is allowed under statute. Section 4 which is briefly, again, just updating the Immokalee redevelopment area plan with maps, and then we did some figures and the appendices were updated to provide a historic overview of what's occurred over the last l8 years. So the bulk of our plan amendment is in Section 5. We are actually requesting that we replace the entire section with a new section that focuses on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment. And with that, I'd like to introduce Evan Johnson, who is with Tindale Oliver, who has been working with us over the last year to provide you an overview ofthe updated plan. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, everyone. As Deborah mentioned, my name is Evan Johnson. I'm with Tindale Oliver in Tampa. And I'm going to walk you through the work we've been doing on the update to Section 5 of the county's redevelopment plan specific to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. So I think it's important to -- as Deborah mentioned, you-all had approved the 2000 -- the original redevelopment plan back in 2000 and found that consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So what I wanted to do was walk you through some of the -- what that plan did back in 2000 and maybe what our plan is doing in comparison to that, what we've done to refresh, since this is an entire removal and replace. So the 2000 redevelopment plan had a series of catalyst projects that it identified. It included finding ways to encourage and incentivize hoteVrestauranUoffice in the Triangle area as well as the flex office warehouse, looked at doing the town center, a town center concept of the Gulf GatePlaza, as well as creating an entertainment center near the intersection of Bayshore and Haldeman Creek. It also had something called neighborhood focus initiatives, which were very much more clean and safe, small-scale residential interventions to make sure that, you know, you're improving some of the neighbor level assets as well. Other items that it identified, stormwater master plan for the Triangle, the Haldeman Creek dredging plan, making sure that it got dredged periodically, roadway improvements, as well as potentially Botanical Garden support. As you may know, the Botanical Gardens relocated since this plan was adopted, still in the CRA, but had moved, and that was part of the vision back in the 2000 plan. It also talked about urban design and what should be done in the focus that - in the future with the urban design zoning elements, architectural. It chose an old-style Florida cracker architecture, if you will, as kind of the preferred style for new construction, smaller front setbacks, parking in rear, more traditional look and feel, and I think if you go around today, some of the newer stufffits within that mold. ln there it also identified some specific landscaping, streetscape improvements, as well as gateway designs, which are basically like entry signage. You'll see on the corner of U.S. 4l and Bayshore there is that signage element that was put in as a result of this plan. Some of the progress that we've made, that you-all have made, the county has made since 2000, include -- well, if you've been in and around Haldeman Creek, it is quite the entertainment center these days. Page 7 of 52 March 21,2019 Naples Steel and Naples Plaza has been developed. There's a new a hotel being constructed now. There's been quite a bit of residential, though most of this has occurred recently. And we're seeing that as -- continues particularly with single-family and some multifamily. With the relocation of the Botanical Gardens, there was a series of density pool units that were captured within the CRA, and these were to give some incentive bonus units elsewhere within the CRA following certain criteria. The plan discusses that as well. Roadway and infrastructure improvements as well as the acquisition of the 17-acre property in about the middle of the CRA where the Botanical Garden used to be, which is still vacant but they're looking at -- the CRA is currently looking at potential catalyst developments. So with the new plan, since we did -- it had been so long, it made a lot more sense just to kind of remove and replace. So what we've done is we've refreshed through a public involvement process, stakeholder interviews, and a variety of means. We've updated the vision statement. We've tweaked that focus to adopt more of an arts and culture focus that has evolved, that Bayshore arts district has been evolving since the adoption of the 2000 plan, and we wanted to grab onto that and make that part of the identity. We've refreshed the goals and objectives and reorganized by theme. We've created character subareas and have some specific recommendations related to each one of those subareas. We've identified branding and marketing and communications projects. Again, going back to those neighborhood focus initiatives, some clean and safe programs, whether that be enhanced code enforcement or other grants and incentives to improve housing, and also we talked about a public arts grant program within the 2019 plan. Some of the infrastructure and transportation contributions, we've talked about complete streets throughout this document, and we've identified specific types of improvements that we think would be appropriate on some of the both neighborhood streets as well as some of your collector streets, whether that be Bayshore or Linwood or any of those. We've got some concepts we've put into the plan and, as Deborah mentioned, this is not regulatory. This is -- we've worked with county staff up to this point but, obviously, further discussion was going to have to happen for implementation and design moving forward. ln the updates to the neighborhood improvement, the neighborhood focus initiatives, again,looking at land-use compatibility, neighborhood infrastructure, whether it be stormwater, streetlights, streetscaping, improved sidewalks, those types of things. And then, finally, we updated the catalyst projects. We've created some -- or at least processed and had public discussions about ideas for not only the mini-triangle area and how to help transition from some of the new development that's coming in to some of the more traditional residential and warehouse and flex space. 'We've also talked about the 17 acres, and we had some specific discussions; we had a community survey about what the community would like to see in that space as it moves forward, looking to bring a new development in. All right. So I'm going to spend a few minutes -- and I won't read all this word for word because I know you all have gone through the plan document, and I'll be glad to talk as long as you want if you have any questions. But this is the refreshed vision statement for the entire plan. And, really, the key is it's about quality of life, economic vitality, encouraging mixed income, urban and multimodal. And what multimodal means is just the ability to get around, whether it be via transit, whether it be via Uber, whether it be via walking on improved sidewalks, bike infrastructure, those types of things. We have a land-use goal focused on defined, harmonious, and urban visual and land-use character with that artistic and kind of cultural arts identity. So how do we -- the thought process that the CRA and the community will be, you know, thinking about moving forward is how do we integrate arts into our all of what we're doing from a land-use component, whether that be public art, murals, art studios, those types of things. I think it needs to be forward in the conversation and has been for some time now with the overlay, but I do think that would be an area where that will be fuither Page I of 52 March 2lr20l9 refined moving forward. Just some example imagery from the CRA. Some of the newer architecture near by. This last image -- I don't know if you can see my mouse -- that's actually in the City of Naples, but we liked the scale and the look and feel of that for some of the more urban areas along Bayshore. We thought that was an appropriate look to kind of mimic. From a public art and gateway, so on the left here -- on my left, on your left as well, that's the existing gateway signage at Bayshore and Tamiami. On the right is just one of a few concepts that we had come up with and that are in the plan for potential refresh of that using the new logo and identity. Currently, there's a lot of nautical themes with some of this signage, and I think there will be a discussion of what do we -- how much of the nautical versus the arts do we want to integrate. So that will be something the CRA and the advisory committee -- I know they're already talking about it. And, actually, I did want to mention, it's -- the CRA endeavor is not just the community, the executive director of the CRA, but she also manages the staff of the MSTU for the Bayshore beautification, which is also going to be integral to anything that happens within the CRA, because they are focused on, you know, streetscape, public realm beautification. So it's a partnership. I don't know how she wears that many hats, but she does. Another item that has come up many times throughout public involvement was just dealing with land use designing transitions, and I think this is what Commissioner Strain was asking about earlier. While not regulatory as a plan now, ultimately, at a future public hearing, there may be recommendations related to the code coming to you to address some of the changes that have occurred since the overlay was adopted. So that will be something in the future that you-all will take a closer look at from a regulatory standpoint. From public spaces, we have -- Bayshore CRA has excellent parks near by, not parks necessarily in the CRA, but you're adjacent to and abutting Sugden in East Naples, which are amazingassets; improving the connections to those, and maybe finding opportunities for some spaces within the CRA itself over time. It was part ofthis goal. As you can see on the right here, there is -- the stormwater pond on the north in the Triangle, we showed a concept of possible capital improvements to make that a little bit more of a passive park to create a little green space in the north. Right now it is there, but it's not -- you can't tell, should I use it? Can I use it? I know people use it for various purposes. But we made a recommendation in the mid term, I think, if not long term, to really look at making that a bit of a passive park for the neighborhood. More of a neighborhood-scale park for those folks up there. We want to foster and guide private development. Well, this is a big part of what a CRA does is incentivize and invest. One of the main purposes of a CRA is to not only reduce and remove blight but to also look to create a return on investment for itself. When you're funded by a tax increment, it's not a tax; it's increasing property values. So the CRA is looking to bring private investment in in hopes that they can continue to kind of create this cycle of investment in the community. We've had some discussion about some of the main private development sites that may provide opportunities. We talk about some potential incentives that should be considered by the advisory committee. They will be deliberating these moving forward once the plan is adopted. Transpoftation and walkability, we've already talked about that, that idea of multimodal, safe ability to walk, bike, take transit. We talk in the plan again about those complete streets, which streets would we like to improve, what elements are missing, and can we get them in potentially. So we've made some recommendations about that. We've also talked about parking and the need for the CRA to become more actively involved in parking, which they are very much so. They are in the process of working on a parking lot improvement now. And then we've got, you know, services such as your circulator services, like Slider. 'We've got one in Tampa as well downtown, all electric cars and vehicles to get people around; park once and go to multiple locations within the area. This is just an example of one of the complete street graphics that are -- you'll find in the document itself. This is actually a Linwood section for some of the commercial areas near, like, upper Naples, where there's an Page 9 of 52 March 21,2019 opportunity to create some parking on street as well as a sidewalk. Currently there isn't much of a sidewalk out there because it's older industrial and warehouse. This would be a complete-street concept for a neighborhood street. Again, for streets like Jeepers and some of the smaller neighbor streets not really necessarily want to spend a whole bunch of money investing in, say, a sidewalk because they're dead-end streets, but maybe there's a way to kind of delineate some pedestrian space versus automobile space. So we used some examples we found from around the country to show how that might look. From an inffastructure standpoint, again, environmental and neighborhood design quality through coordinated improvement planning and funding. Infrastructure ultimately is going to have to be a close coordination between the CRA and the county departments that are in charge of capital improvements and investment over time. CRA cannot affiord to do it all itself. No matter how much TIF it gets, it really needs to be in concert with county work. So, ultimately, this is a coordination process that could address -- the CRA's been quite active in doing some stormwater improvements at the neighborhood level. Also, as you see on the left here, that's a stormwater slash parking improvement in front of one of the new houses there. That's, like, a turf block with a drain where you can park on it to try to solve a couple problems there. So this will be an ongoing discussion that the CRA's involved with. I know that they continue to work on small-scale stormwater and water improvements in coordination with the City of Naples as well since the city does operate most of the distribution system in the CRA. And then, finally, goal related to process. So, ultimately, as we -- we had great participation. The advisory committee is probably tired of seeing me. Usually I come down, we spend two hours together, and then I leave. We've done that a few times now. So -- but I do -- we did notice that not only with the advisory committee, but there is this need to kind of make sure that we're all -- we're doing a better job of reaching out to all types of participants within the community as well as the county departments and so forth. So we've got some -- just some recommendations related to that process as well. Just showing you some examples. If you didn't believe me, that is actually me in that picture. I was there talking to people and discussing. We had topical advisory committee and stakeholder group meetings. So just making sure that we kind of formalize some of the process. We maybe try to expand a little bit of the outreach, whether it's a -- how are we reaching out to rental communities versus just homeowners. You know, there's a number of condos, but there's also a number of apartments, and how do we bring those different communities to the table as well moving forward. We had conversations with the school district on a couple of occasions just to get a sense of what their students are saying and the experience of their students, the local schools in the area. And so I think having them occasionally interfacing with the CRA would be also beneficial to the overall community. So we talk about that in the plan as well. This is the conceptual diagram, which you are required by statute to have a graphic, a conceptual diagram that kind of identifies what the capital investment projects will be. So you do this in a very summarized way. So this graphic within your plan shows what -- and has corresponding pages with capital improvements listed on it. It talks about the complete streets. It talks about the various other things we've already covered. The character areas, as we noted, we have seven of them identified so far, of which we have started to -- we've talked a little bit about the types of, say, land use and development issues that may be apparent in each of these districts and what that might mean moving forward when somebody comes back with a code amendment, with a plan-amendment discussion in the future. So from a next-step perspective, well, we're here today to make sure that the Planning Commission finds that this plan is consistent with the GMP. Our next step is to go to the CRA, which is the BOCC, sits as the CRA, for their approval. Ultimately, we're planning on doing that next week, depending on if there's no significant changes here today; that will be coming up. We'll go -- both the CRA board and the BCC has to hear the item, so we will be getting their approval on Page 10 of 52 March 2lr20l9 both counts even though it's kind of a "take your hat offand put your other hat on" process. And, ultimately, we will be back. I will be back on April l8th to talk to you-all. This is a tentative date. I don't know if this has actually been booked, but it's what we've tentatively put on our calendars to talk about some of the ideas that we have for amendments to the overlay, and that's a little bit more into that regulatory discussion. It will not be coming in ordinance form. It's just recommendations in a memo but, ultimately, that will be a little bit more detailed discussion about, you know, setbacks and uses and those types of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean to intemrpt your presentation, but I've just got clarification, since you're on that point. The Land Development Code is implementation of the Growth Management Plan. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The visioning statement here is anticipating changes to the Growth Management Plan. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the GMP changes should probably be more fine tuned as to what specificity this vision statement's going to have on that before we go into possibly LDC language, because I don't know how we'd correlate the LDC language to the potential changes you're talking about as a result of this new vision plan. MR. JOHNSON: If I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. JOHNSON: -- I will say that from a GMP perspective, there are some -- and I believe, actually, in the memo that we've put together for recommendations, we do touch a little bit on areas in the GMP that may need to be revisited. But, ultimately, it's not wholesale revisions on the GMP. So I do believe that we can have a conversation about that memorandum and those recommendations absent of knowing exactly what the future changes will be as just a discussion point. Ultimately, somebody will need to come back, whether that be another consultant or staff, and bring those codified at a future date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the way that reads, it looked like you were actually going to have recommendations ready for us to review. It's going to be another more of a vision idea of how the LDC language would evolve as a result of what we're doing today. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, potentially evolve, yes. And it is a fairly detailed memo, and we can get as much in the weeds as you want, or we can talk about it. But, ultimately, it's just -- this is after we reviewed the code and had our discussions with the public. These are some of the items that we feel, moving forward, you-all will need to address, and that's what we wanted to kind of -- it's a place to start with that discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. MR. JOHNSON: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else for your presentation? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir, just any questions from you-all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just before we start out, I always defer to my other panel members first for their discussion. Just so everybody knows, I had meetings with you and other members of staff in which I had a lot of clarification provided to me on this. I don't believe everybody else here had that accessibility. So I will not have many comments at this point. You've all adequately explained everlthing. I do have two or three items left as a result of our discussion on just two pages that I would want to discuss. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't know how we're -- I'm going to turn to the panel first to first see -- and, Tom, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, I had a question regarding sidewalks. I believe in one of the slides that you showed you had a street without a sidewalk. MR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. MR. EASTMAN: And I think sidewalks are good, especially when we're getting a chance to redevelop an area. Could you explain why sidewalks were excluded from the street plan? MR. JOHNSON: Sure, sure. So what we've -- what we talked about as we started -- you've got this main roadway or two main roadways, say Thomasson and Bayshore, and you have a number of neighborhood-level Page 11 of 52 March 21,2019 streets without a lot of right-of-way, not a lot of pavement, that are just dead ends. There's a couple of them that have, like, access points into the parks, which, absolutely, those already have sidewalks, and there have been some sidewalk improvements on some of the larger ones of those streets, but there are a number of streets where, just from a strategic planning cost-management perspective, we don't necessarily think that the traffic volumes would necessitate the extra drainage additions that you would have to take care of with putting a sidewalk in as well as, you know, other provisions. So all we've suggested in the plan was there may be some streets, some of these neighborhood dead-ends streets, that you could use another approach which typically has been done in other places, is creating kind of a shared bike/pedestrian space and add some lighting and improve safety dramatically over what's there now without necessarily spending maybe infrastructure dollars that are -- you know, you're competing always between priorities. So that was our approach to doing that. Yes, sir. MR. EASTMAN: In these areas where you're not doing the sidewalks, is there open swale drainage? MR. JOHNSON: Typically -- I can't speak for every single street but, for the most part, yes. MR. EASTMAN: It seems if multimodal is a big factor, then sidewalks should be of paramount importance or at least rise to that level -- MR. JOHNSON: Right. MR. EASTMAN: -- and putting sidewalks, maybe piping drainage where you have swales, maybe less insects and, certainly, I think, would increase the property value and create a safe area for people to walk. We have a high population of senior citizens who probably don't want to walk right next to the road. It seems like sidewalks are really, really important. MR. JOHNSON: And we have -- I believe in our capital plan we have an assumption built in in both short term, mid term, and long term for as yet unspecified sidewalk improvements, because we couldn't just call out every single - this is a 30-year vision of where we want to go. So I absolutely -- I agree that sidewalks are very important. I think our solution or our potential approach was just to show you that you might not need to -- you could remove improve safety significantly without necessarily putting a sidewalk on every single one of these little side roads. But I hear you, and I think the CRA advisory board -- I think the last time visited with them they were debating and discussing sidewalks and where it's appropriate and where we need to focus, so it will still be a major part of the conversation, and we've allocated money to that effect from a sidewalk perspective. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to do and where I was going to go is see what the panel would like to do as how to approach this document. I've only got two pages in questions, so for me it's rather simple. But I know from the rest of you, there may be lengthy discussions. I don't want the whole meeting wrapped up in just one person's discussions. So I think we ought to break it down by page sections. Possibly we go every 50 pages, then there's -- and the problem with that is we've all got different pages. Karen uses a different process than I do, and I use a different process than the rest ofyou. So you've got over 700 pages, I only have 629, and I'm not sure how many Karen has because hers are in print form. So we'll just have to go by volume, I guess. Maybe 50 pages at a time, and when I get to my end, I'm done. I'll have mine answered, and you guys can go on for your unknown pages after I have my 629 pages completed. So with that, let's start with the first 50 pages. Does anybody have any questions? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I have a question basically, on -- well, it's on the -- and -- well, it's on the executive summary. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. If it will help, I'll just go ahead and open up a PDF if you think that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yours -- yeah, you can try. I mean, what we find out is yours may not be matching any of ours at all either, so we'lljust have to do the best we can. MR. JOHNSON: That works. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the executive summary, and it's where it says "fiscal impacq" and this was really for the staff. It's probably for Mike Bosi and Dave Weeks. It says there's no fiscal impact directly imposed by the adoption of the updated Community Redevelopment Plan. Page L2 of 52 i March 21,2019 Though factually correct, it's also implied factually incorrect. For every dollar of TIF that is, well, sent into the -- as was described, into the trust fund, that is a direct dollar-to-dollar loss to the General Fund and the Unincorporated Fund, Fund 1l 1 and 001. And the Board should clearly understand that there is a fiscal impact, and that impact is a loss of revenue to the county in the General Fund that has to be made up by the rest of the public and the county. So it's -- it is -- there is a fiscal impact. Any CRA has a fiscal impact, and that should be pointed out clearly in the -- in identiffing the potential impact of -- even the extending of the CRA, it does create a long-term loss -- MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to the General Fund that has to be made up elsewhere, or the Board just accepts it as a loss in their budgeting process. MR. JOHNSON: So making sure that -- sorry. So making sure that maybe that language is modified a bit to more clearly explain? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I think maybe Deb Forester or the staffwould clearly have to make sure the Board understands there is a direct correlation for every dollar that goes into the -- MR. JOHNSON: That is held in the trust fund. Would not be -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Held in a trust fund is money lost in the General Fund, and it has to be made up elsewhere in the budgetary process, or not made up. That's a budget decision that's a direct impact on 001 andFund 111. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it on the first 50? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,I have more, but,I think -- CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you get done -- we'll just move across the panel. And why don't you get done with yours first, and then we'll go to the next, and we'll come back again for the next 50. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm on page -- it's Page 3 of the -- Section l.l, Page 3 point -- the fiscal and social economical impact. Basically, we're stating that Bayshore/Gateway is still considered a blighted area; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And to eliminate -- and back in Paragraph 5, it says, to eliminate substandard housing conditions and to provide adequate amount of housing. Can you explain what -- how you classifu substandard housing and what do you mean by substandard housing? Is this housing that should be condemned? Is this housing that is subjectively substandard? What do you mean by that? MR. JOHNSON: So the statutes as far as substandard buildings and structures is the actual language that's used. That could mean a variety of things, and typically it -- looking at whether it could be structures that need to be condemned. It could be -- you have a situation in Bayshore where you have a number of mobile homes that are in very, very poor condition and predate any modern safety standards, right? And those would be situations where that would be a substandard structure within the district. We look at code enforcement data as well, typically. We did not do a finding of necessity for this, but that is the original document that documented all of these issues. But, you know, obviously, we've done windshield suryeys, we've gone around, we've taken photos; we've done a lot of documentation of conditions. So, typically, that would be something where you could have existing single-family residential with -- where it's worn out, physical conditions are poor, it's got a number of code-enforcement issues related to the structure. You can also have more obvious ones, which you do have a number of, which could include things Iike the mobile homes that are in really poor condition. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But the CRA's been in -- basically, in existence for 18 -- almost 1 8 years. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then it goes on to say on that same page, a blighted area, and it means either the areas that is a substantial number of slum deteriorated and deteriorated structures and conditions which endanger life, properfy, and by high fre and other causes, and it goes on to state basically a blighted area. Page 13 of 52 r€ March 21,2019 The visioning statement seems to indicate that the entire area is still deemed a blighted area even though there's been significant improvements over the last 18 years. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, in fact, it implies that it ought to -- there's some areas where it says that the CRA footprint should be increased. That sort of implies that the last 18 years have been a failure. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, I would disagree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I know you disagree with it; of course, you do. But your document is stating that the area's still blighted when, in fact, l8 years, there certainly has been some significant changes, especially in areas along 41. MR. JOHNSON: No. And I agree that there have been significant improvements, particularly in the last several years. Say the second half of that l8-year span, there's definitely been significant improvements. And what you're seeing now is you're seeing actually where the private market is investing more in individual homes and lots, probably more so than it's done certainly since 2000, and there's been an increased interest. And I think that we need to celebrate the fact that there has been a lot of progress, that it is becoming a place that -- where what we said we were going to do back in 2000 we are starting to be able to do, though it has taken some time. But that doesn't mean that blight has been completely eradicated within the area of the CRA. And so from a statutory standpoint, if it is a blighted area and it's been designated as such and these conditions still exist, then it would continue to be designated that way by just the fact that it's a CRA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I don't agree with you, but that's fine. MR. JOHNSON: When you look at any -- when you look at any CRA, I think there's always a mix. I mean, these are areas that will have areas that are very problematic. But once redevelopment starts to occur, certainly you see improvements, and the design of a CRA is to use those new developments to continue to fund improvements in the more problematic areas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Section 1.5, and this is on Page 7 , yo.u use a term "diversity of ownership." Removing nonconforming uses who are (sic) overcome diversity of ownership. Can you explain what the intent there is? What is the diversity of ownership? MR. JOHNSON: So, again, that's the statutory language. That section you're reading from, those are the different criteria that the statutes require you to look at to establish a CRA in the beginning. And so a diversity of ownership could mean that you have a number of -- we could have a number of small commercial sites that are owned by multiple entities that have issues of title that make aggregation of properties or redevelopment problematic. That could be a diversity of ownership. You could have -- because oftentimes, particularly with redevelopment, it's going to require taking properties that were maybe of standards in the 1960s and bringing them up to a modern development standard, and that typically requires more land, more parking, more stormwater, all of those things that come along with new development. So a diversity of ownership can range to mean anything from issues with title in the fact that we don't know who owns it or how to acquire it. I know after the last recession, there were a lot of issues related to foreclosures and zombie properties, for lack of a better term. That definitely would be considered problematic when you're talking about redevelopment, encouraging development. But it also can just mean we've got a ton of really, really small commercial parcels that are maybe substandard, maybe don't meet what would be considered a highest and best use or a better use within the community, and how we go about aggregating those or incentivizing to aggregate those over time. That could also be considered a diversity of ownership. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Section 1.5 -- and this plan is asking -- the first paragraph, the amendment will extend the terms to 2049, and that is a goal that's being stated but, of course, that would have to be a separate action for the Board. This plan just identifies it as a goal. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. Now -- sorry. I thought I heard Deborah coming behind me. MS. FORESTER: So right now this plan says to extend itto 2049. That's the 30 years. We are going to be having this conversation with the Board when the Board considers the adoption of this plan. And they have a Page L4 of 52 March 2Lr20l9 variety of options that are going to be presented to them. They could go with the 30; they could not extend the life at all; they could find a happy medium. So our plan and the projects that we've identified go out the 30 years, if you look at our capital projects. So that fiscal impact that you mentioned earlier, all of that is going to be discussed at the Board level because that is their responsibility, to determine the length of the CRA. So while this plan currently says it goes out 30 years, at the adoption hearing the Board may very well say that they don't want to do that or they want to change that number to a different number. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the plan does not actually codiff the extension? Doesn't that have to be a separate action of the Board? MS. FORESTER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. MS. FORESTER: This is the plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So if they approve this plan, they actually approve the extension of the CRA? MS. FORESTER: Right. But, again, that fiscal impact will be discussed at the Board level from their budgeting perspective. I don't believe it has an impact on the Growth Management component as you're reviewing it today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. lnteresting. Mark, do you want me to keep on going? I don't know if anybody else had any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty pages. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifty pages, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I mean, do you have -- Joe, if you've got -- I didn't expect anybody to have a lot of questions, but if we want to move to others and come back to you, that maybe will work, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 10, in use of tax incremental revenues, develop affordable housing within the redevelopment area. How much affordable housing has been developed using tax incremental financing in the last l8 years? MR. JOHNSON: I don't know if we've used any for the purposes of developing affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's in the plan. MR. JOHNSON: Well, it's in this plan, yes, sir. MS. FORESTER: And, again, I think the option here is we're providing a menu. So right now the statute encourages us to look at making sure we have a mixed-income neighborhood, and that's providing housing for a whole variety of the workforce and the elderly. So what this plan does is say that if the Board should choose to help to fund affordable housing in the are4 they could, because it's identified as one of the menu options. So that would, again, require us to come back to the Board of County Commissioners, the CRA, and say we are going to take these funds, and we're going to do this agreement with a private developer or whoever to do that. So this -- again, we're trying to create sort of an overall vision and a menu of opportunities here. And everything that's listed does not mean we will do it, but it's a plan. And what the plan also does is it requires us to come back every five years, review that plan with the Board of County Commissioners and the CRA board and see if they want to revise it. So they always have that opportunity. Because we are a county CRA, they could certainly make changes whenever they chose to do that. So today we're just trying to provide you an array of choices that can then be fuither decided at a future date with the Board of County Commissioners and the CRA advisory committee also making recommendations to that board. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just -- and that language seems to be somewhat contradictory to the other goals within the CRA, but that's the reason I asked the question. I mean, there are -- if it's an objective to use TIFF money for affordable housing, I think you need to identiff in more detail how you're going to do that, or if it's a goal, or is it just some lofty suggestion in the plan? Because there is a diversity in housing. That's why I asked the question about diversity of housing. And Page 15 of 52 March 21,20L9 my impression was, well, we want to eliminate what others may deem blight or some may seem to indicate that is affording housing. You know, there's mobile home parks there and other areas down in there, and some people find that very affordable. Others consider that blight. MS. FORESTER: We want to provide safe housing. I think that's the key. And so some of those older mobile homes to talk about a replacement program where we can still provide affordability but in a safer environment. And, you know, I want to correct the statement that we've never provided any funding for affordable housing, because the CRA over years has had a residential grant program, so there was a sweat-equity program. If somebody wanted to come in and assist with improving their conditions, that was available. We haven't been funding it over the last couple of years just due to funding. But I believe as we move forward that residential grant program will probably come back in, and that will be funded with the use of tax-increment dollars. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I wanted to raise the issue. I'm going to ask one question, and then I'll defer to other staff for a while or other members of the Board. But the next several pages all include discussion of Immokalee. My only general question is we went through the Immokalee Master Plan. I didn't look at any of this language addressing Immokalee. I would assume at some time the language within this CRA will be amended to sync with the Immokalee Master Plan. MS, FORESTER: What we're hoping to do -- and, again, they're two separate documents with two separate, sort of, goals. So as you're going through the Immokalee Area Master Plan, we want to get that completed, and then we will go back and look at Section 4 of the redevelopment plan to look at updating that to make sure it is consistent with that new Immokalee Area Master Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because, again,I didn't go through any of that at all. MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm up to Section 5, and I'll defer to other members of the Board, because I do have some questions in Section 5 as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 5 of the first 50 pages? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm on -- it takes me to Page 47 of the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I need to come back to you if we've still got to finish the first pages. That's all I'm trying to get through. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'll stop, because I'm up to Section 5 of the document. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Karen, did you have anl.thing you wanted on the first 50? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm not sure what the first 50 is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the end, when we get done today, if you have any questions, I'll just ask you, and you can go through. I notice you didn't tab anything, but we'll just do the best we can. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. It's all concerned with Bayshore and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- basically, housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, yours? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, if you're leaving at 10:30, do you want to go first? Would it make more sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're telling me you've got -- it's going to take more than -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Yeah. I just have two quick questions, since I have gone through this in detail before coming here. I just don't have a lot of questions left, and you guys were nice enough to help me the other day in the questions I did have. If you turn to future land-use densities. It's on Page 5-3-6 of your document. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Page 101 of my document. MR. JOHNSON: 5-3-6 helps me out. Page 16 of 52 March 2lr20l9 CFL{IRMAN STRAIN: fught. And I've only got two questions, and then I'm done for today, and I'll to leave it with my board to -- MR. JOHNSON: I'm there. I pulled it up on my computer. It's a little easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the table you have there, you have future land uses, and it says in the second one down, "Redevelopment overlay, properties with access to U.S. 41, East Bayshore, Davis, west side of Airport-Pulling Road. " ln there you have densities where you talk about 12 UPAs from the density pool. The last sentence says, "The mini-triangle catalyst site east of Davis/U.S. 41 intersection is an exception with a maximum 70 dwelling IIPAs." Now, there are a variety of plans on record for the Bayshore CRA. We have a mini-triangle designation on one plan. We have a mini-triangle subdistrict which was created for part of the catalyst area, and then we have the mini-triangle catalyst project, which is the entire properties at the point, including the countSr's property and the piece in front. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But you're saying here that the 70 dwelling units have been awarded to the mini-triangle catalyst site. Do you really mean that, or do you mean the mini-triangle subdistrict? MR. JOHNSON: So when this was written, the focus was on the coun[r's ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to read -- you need to rewrite it in there, because the way this -- MR. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you've written covers -- MR. JOHNSON: The entire -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on the maps the whole triangle -- the whole mini-triangle, and you don't mean to do that. I'm sure you don't. It had an MPUD there. MR. JOHNSON: And that was specific to the PUD at the time that we had reviewed it for the countlz's ownership, not for the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The property in the point never had applied for 70 units per acre. MR. JOHNSON: Correct, correct, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you can correct that paragraph? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then there's a little Footnote I next to the -- after Airport Road under your future land use, and that Footnote I says the following: "According to Collier County Growth Management staff, this definition is interpreted broadly to mean properties that can gain access to the roads, whether directly, (access point on the road) or via one or more other roads. It is not viewed narrowly to mean have an access onto the road. As a result, the definition encompasses all properties in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle overlay except those east of Airport Road." Why don't you just say that instead of a footnote that's going to make the whole thing kind of hard for people to figure out without understanding what county staff has interpreted this to mean? MR. JOHNSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically say everything in Bayshore. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. We came to where we should -- we could have started with that, sure. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that -- on that page, those are the two points I'm suggesting that -- MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- are clarified. Then the last comment I have is where you've reproduced the Immokalee language. We know from the master plan that came through here two weeks ago that the districts in Immokalee have dramatically changed in what they can and can't do. You have a low residential, mixed residential, high residential, nonresidential, commercial, industrial and all the rest, yet that language remains the same. Now, Immokalee's one step ahead of Bayshore in regards to changing their on-the-ground uses by the Comprehensive Plan, yet their language hasn't changed. Can you tell me why we've got you going in doing it step Page L7 of 52 March 21,2019 by step as it probably should have been done versus Immokalee coming in and changing a master plan without changing their vision statement in the redevelopment plan? MS. FORESTER: It's sort of like a chicken-and-an-egg situation here. So you can do it a variety of ways. So Immokalee, because they have been working on that area master plan for a long time as you know, they proceeded with that. So we can't do the redevelopment plan until they finish that. In the Bayshore district, before I came back, the community decided it was time to update their redevelopment plan. So we're doing it this way. So the statute doesn't really provide too much guidance that you have to do one before the other, so -- but we didn't want to go in and really touch Section 4 of this plan that deals with Immokalee until after they get the master plan approved. So we will come back and do that hopefully in2020. But for right now we just tried to do some basic updates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying by the way we're looking at this today is the redevelopment plan that currently exists for what you want to do in Bayshore is inconsistent with the vision plan -- that vision plan that we're now seeing today because the new vision plan -- well, both of them will be consistent with the GMP. Is that what you're saying, the current vision plan and the new vision plan? MS. FORESTER: Yes, current will be consistent with the Growth Management Plan today that we have for Bayshore. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: So do you consider the new Immokalee Master Plan that's going through the system right now to be consistent with the visioning plan? MS. FORESTER: The current visioning plan as -- I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look on Page 315, and you'll see the practical application. The information that I'm finding here under consistency with the Growth Management Plan in the Immokalee section talks about the districts that we just changed in the Immokalee Master Plan that now would make that master plan inconsistent with these districts. How does that work? MS. FORESTER: I think you could go ahead and change the Growth Management Plan without impacting their redevelopment opportunities. And then once that GroMh Management Plan is changed, then we will come back and we will clariff this. But you can't -- you don't have to stop redevelopment to occur because you're making changes to the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not suggesting we stop redevelopment from occurring. I'm suggesting that the redevelopment that's occurring now should be consistent with this vision statement that was adopted as part, by this board and others, as being consistent with the GMP but now the GMP that you've wrote is not consistent with that previous vision plan. MS. FORESTER: I think the changes -- again, we haven't focused on Immokalee, but when they referenced the Growth Management Plan in here, there had been other changes done. If you recall, in 2000, they were going through a number of growth management items in Immokalee. So -- and, unfortunately, we weren't updating the redevelopment plan as things were changing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are you saying that you have a vision plan that was amended for Immokalee that would have been consistent, then, with the master plan that we've processed last week or two weeks ago? MS. FORESTER: I haven't looked atthat in close proximity with this redevelopment plan. I'd have to sit down and look at that. But today we're not proposing to make any real changes to the Immokalee plan and, unforfunately, because of the way we are organized, I guess, as a CRA, with one plan, two component areas, we're doing it in sections. So today we're doing Bayshore/Gateway. Next year we'll do the Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read a section to you in the statute. Section 163.360(2)(b). The plan should be -- "The plan shall be sufficiently complete to indicate such land-use acquisition, demolition, and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements and rehabilitation as may be proposed to be carried out in the community redevelopment areas," then it's a comma, "zoning and planning changes, if any, land uses, maximum densities, and building requirements." The Immokalee Master Plan that we reviewed doesn't meet those requirements because of the zoning changes proposed that are part of the plan that's attached to the document you're asking us to review today even Page 18 of 52 March 21,2019 though it's not Immokalee that you're focusing on today; it's Bayshore. My concern now is, how is -- when I met with you, you hadn't given me 629 pages to read. Unfortunately, I did read the fiil| 629 pages since then. Now that Immokalee is clearly different than the plan that was produced that this board reviewed two weeks ago, I still don't see how that plan can proceed without first changing the context of the redevelopment agency's vision statement to be consistent so the plan and -- is consistent with the vision statement and the vision statement is consistent with the GMP. I don't know how you're getting there now that I've read this. MS. FORESTER: And I'll have to spend some time comparing what's in here and what the new Immokalee Area Master Plan is and that we can be prepared by the time it comes back after transmittal to look at those issues. And then at that time we can certainly look at making any modifications that's required in this redevelopment plan if there's a conflict between the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we being asked today to -- when we improve this, is it going to be approving the CRA's redevelopment plan for both sections of the CRA, Immokalee and Bayshore? MS. FORESTER: It's to adopt -- or to make a recommendation to adopt as the changes are presented to you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we are de facto, then, accepting the documents today even though we know they may not be consistent -- well, I can tell you they aren't consistent with the plan that we've previously reviewed for Immokalee. MS. FORESTER: The plan that you have reviewed is not adopted yet, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to hold adoption offuntil this gets corrected? MS. FORESTER: We can if that's the direction of the Board, and I think that's what I'm suggesting that we can do is we can look at the Immokalee Area Master Plan, look at this redevelopment section for Immokalee. The advisory committee for the redevelopment area has put that on their priority list to look at making the changes to the redevelopment plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was my comment: All of Section 4 in this document is the old plan, and none of it's been amended, and it all has to deal with Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we're approving the old plan even though it's not consistent with the plan we just reviewed last week. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And your suggestion is we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Except the new master plan is in there, correct, Deborah? I'm seeing a new master plan for Immokalee in the package with the old plan crossed out. MS. FORESTER: No. The Immokalee plan is in there. It's not being crossed out. The only changes that were made in the Immokalee section had to do with the Future Land Use Map and the boundary map. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. But you're putting in the new Immokalee Area Master Plan in the package. I can't tell you what page I'm on, but I'm after the references to the -- well, it's in Section 4.3, and it's after page -- your next page is after 23. You've got a crossed-out Immokalee Future Land Use Map and a new map. MS. FORESTER: Yeah. And that is the existing map today. That is what is adopted and is on your website as the Future Land Use Map for Immokalee. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But Figure 3 is not the current -- the next page, Figure 3 -- because this page has got an X on it, and then -- I mean, I can put it on the visualizer if you want to know what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only -- the Immokalee Master Plan they have in here is the one we're currently using today, not the one that went through us two weeks ago, because it wasn't adopted yet. MS. FORESTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Figure 3 -- yeah, Figure 3 is the current plan. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's the current plan? CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's the current plan, yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's got the crosshatching, so I thought it was the new one. Okay. Page 19 of 52 March 21,2019 CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. FORESTER: That's the one that I believe is the current plan. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: You've got to use the mike. MS. FORESTER: Sorry. I believe that's the plan that is today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. My -- and I'll just leave it for research. I mean, we have not -- you're asking us to now go through the transmittal process subject to possibly changes as a result of now making -- changing the Immokalee section to make consistent with a plan that is ahead of the vision statement. I'm not -- for adoption. Now I don't know what apple cart that's going to upturn, but I'm a little concerned about taking things out of step like that. I like the way you've done Bayshore. Honestly, if we started out with the bottom rung of the ladder and understood how the ladder -- how we're moving up the ladder, it would have been easier for us to understand that Immokalee Master Plan. It wasn't done that way in Immokalee, unfortunately. I think Bayshore is doing it the right way, so I don't have any problem with your Bayshore process. But it has brought a question in now as to how we're doing the Immokalee in comparison. So I'll leave it at that. That was a statement. Somehow it's going to have to work its way through by the time we move forward. Maybe the Board will want to weigh in on it; I don't know. MS. FORESTER: And I will do that. I will look at it. I think probably when this plan was written in 2000 -- and I can take credit or concern about that, is we probably put too much detail about what the Growth Management Plan said. That wasn't really necessary in this redevelopment plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you get into it, Deborah, if you call me before we come to the next meeting, we might be able to save a lot of people's time. I don't mean to take up people's time on issues I'm focusing on, so... Okay. That's the only two questions I had. And, Ned, if you want to go forward. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you for the time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. My first question is general in nature, and it has to do with what our proper role is as the Planning Commission. And I understand that under the statute there's a reference to running this through us for consistency with the Growth Management Plan. Is that the extent that it is permissible or desirable for us to review this? MR. BOSI: Yes. The Planning Commission is being asked to review this plan for consistency with the GMP. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's all we're being asked to do? MR. BOSI: That's all you're being asked to do. You can make comments. You can provide suggestions. You can have evaluations of any of the strategies that are within there based upon your own individual experience, but those would just be in terms of trying to improve a plan in a way that you think would be a positive effect. But the only action that we're asking you to do is review it for consistency with the current GMP. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And so if we limited ourselves in that way, that would be the end of it for us. We wouldn't see it again, would we? MR. BOSI: That would be the end of your review of this redevelopment plan. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: But it comes back in the form of the GMP and the LDC. MR. BOSI: Well, there will be future actions that would -- at a separate time that would be implementing some of these -- some of these proposals, whether it be the LDC amendments, whether it be the GMP amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll also see it on adoption, won't we, Mike? This will come back on adoption. MR. BOSI: This is not a Growth Management Plan. This is not a regulatory action. This is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't -- MR. BOSI: -- support documentation for the redevelopment plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'm a little confused because I thought Deborah just stood up and Page 20 of 52 March 21,2019 said we're going to see it again on adoption, so what we do today we can see come back and have another bite at the apple. I didn't understand why she said it, but I accepted it. MR. BOSI: The Immokalee Area Master Plan will be coming back for adoption, which is a Growth Management Plan, which is following the state process. This is a simple one-off in terms of review of the redevelopment plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this redevelopment plan goes into the process, is done, then we build the CRA changes to the GMP, if any. They come back to us, and that's the meat and nuts and bolts of the language, and then the LDC will follow, and then that language will be rewritten to whatever extent needed. Does that help? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It helps me understand, but it doesn't satisff me, and here's why: And the County Attorney has many times said to us that the Growth Management Plan is our plan in the first instance and that we are, under statute, the local planning agency. This vision document will, down the road, assuming it is adopted, then be pointed to as justification for amending the GMP and the LDC in order to be consistent with this document which, to me, makes it a very, very important document. And so for us to just have one look at it, recognizingthat the CRA advisory board has looked at it -- and I think that's good, and that it may go back to the CRA advisory board. But I've got a lot of concerns about this thing that you're going to hear about later this morning, and particularly if this is our only bite at the apple. MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't have to be. I mean, if you want to see it again, you ask staff to bring it back again. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well -- so am I correct that our role doesn't need to be confined to consistency with the current GMP? MR. KIATZKOW: Your recommendation's going to be whether or not it's consistent. As far as the discussions and everything else that goes, you're free to ask whatever you want. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. So I think where I'm going to personally be coming to, when the time comes to vote, subject to or depending upon how the answers to my questions come out, is that this does come back to us. I'm glad to focus on consistency with the GMP, but this brings me to my second point. Actually, the first point I was going to make was well made by Commissioner Schmitt about the budget that -- when you create a TIF, you're basically removing funds from the General Fund, and somehow it has to be either made up for or will result in an LOS change, I guess, in other parts of the county. And I'm not saying whether that's bad or good. It's just a fact. That's money that's out of the General Fund. And so that point was well made, and I second it. Now, the thing that is of concern to me here, and it's a little bit aligned with the Chairman's concern about getting carts before horses, and this has to do with the relationship of this document to the current GMP. In my personal opinion, having been on this board for two years and a little bit, two years and some change, I've seen -- I personally have been frustrated about how we find ourselves limited by provisions of the GMP that may have not been fully tested or validated, and now we're being asked to endorse a vision plan that deals directly with some of these problematic issues, or at least they're issues that are problematic to me such as the concept of a TCMA bonus. I've also felt that that has -- if that has been validated, I have not seen the validation. I think that an argument can be made that it should be a penalty rather than a bonus for TCMA additional housing units being granted. I remain open minded about that, but I'd like to see some validation before we then start, you know, changing our vision statement on the assumption that points like that have been validated. Another one is having to do with complete streets. ln some areas I think that's a good idea, but even in this report -- and I can find the page for you if you don't remember it, but there was a concession in your report that the concept of complete streets will result in more traffic congestion. Do you recall saying that? MR. JOHNSON: I could -- certainly language like that -- I don't remember the page it was on, but -- Page 2L of 52 March 21,2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: We'll come to it. But I'll find it, and I'll point it out to you. But it's the concept that I want to talk about right now. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because, for instance, if you were to constrain the East Trail by means of making it a so-called complete street, you're going to be taking geography away from automobile roadway, and that is already a very busy street. It's a street where there's frequent congestion. Now, if we were doing that, we'd be doing it in the name of alternate forms of transportation: Bicycles, pedestrians, and the like. Again, has that been validated? Has that concept been validated for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle, or is it just a general concept sort of aspirational in nature that complete streets are kind of good everywhere? MR. JOHNSON: So I think there's -- I mean, from our perspective and what we've done for the purposes of the plan, there have been discussions related to 41. We didn't validate any specific information related to them. That was much more aspirational, and, of course, that would require, you know, close coordination with DOT and any type of long-term conversations. As far as internal to the CRA itself where these are county roadways and so forth, again, we didn't do validation. There have been some concepts recommended in the past. We thought that some of those concepts made a lot of sense and they were consistent with what we were hearing from the community, so we wanted to make sure, as Deborah pointed out, that they're part of the potential menu of pursuits that the CRA could undertake over the next 30 years. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the concept of complete streets is pervasive in your report. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pervasive. MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I can see some good aspects of it in certain areas, but I don't think one size fits all, and particularly in a community -- well, in many communities in Southwest Florida where you have elderly people who are less inclined, I think, to be riding bicycles. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You have very young people who are driving automobiles and riding bicycles. Having - in my judgment, on a busy roadway like the East Trail, having automobiles and bicycles and pedestrians all together on the same platform, I think that's dangerous. It may work on Bayshore, but I certainly can't see it working on the East Trail or some of the larger streets. So that's two of the three concerns I had. Then the third concern that I have about the GMP -- and here we're trying to tailor solutions or adjust our vision in a way that would match important aspects of the GMP. One of the aspects in there that is important but I find the way the GMP currently handles it is very troublesome, and that has to do with what we're able to do and what the Board of County Commissioners is able to do with respect to developments -- proposals that come in on nearby streets that are going to be deficient within five years. There seems to be very little we can do in those circumstances. And so to summarize my general concerns, they are that we can -- we're dressing up a vision plan here to give effect to certain aspects of the Growth Management Plan that I don't believe have been yet fully validated, and I have some specific concerns, but that's my -- that and the budget point that Commissioner Schmitt made were my two general points. I don't know if you want to take a break now, and I'll come back page by page or what. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably, if you're going to do that, let's take a break for l5 minutes and come back at 10:40. (A brief recess was had, and Chairman Strain left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CI{AIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Okay. I think we'll just go through Bayshore Section 5. They're both -- whatever pages they are, I have two packets. They both have the same Section 5 in them. So if you want to go page by page, if that's how you Page 22 of 52 March 21,2019 want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do, and I think Commissioner Schmitt's going to hit one. My first one is going to come after his, I think, at Page 5-E-6. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. But I just wantto -- MR. JOHNSON: Oh, yeah. I just wanted to ask if I have a second to say something. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I just wondered at what point -- there were some -- some people have left. If there's the CRA people here who want to speak from Bayshore, if we want to hear from them first or -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was hoping that we did have some people here from the advisory board. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There are some. They are - COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to hear from them. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And you have speakers slips. MR. BOSI: Yeah, we have two speaker slips submitted. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Just two? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go with that first. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I'd like to hear from them. MR. BOSI: The first speaker we have is Al Schantzen followed by Donna McGinnis. MR. SCHANTZEN: Al Schantzen. I'm the newest member of the CRA board. And I appreciate the opportunity, the opportunity to speak. I'm here to support changes in the plan especially when it comes towards the -- one of the concerns a member mentioned was on the blight side. Other than the full process and everything, as I sit back and observe what's going on here, I was looking to have more feeling for the whole process and everything. So, basically, I'm here to support anything that we can do to help with decreasing the blight in my neighborhood, and I appreciate the opporlunity to speak. But that's about all I have at this time. Any questions, I'm okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As far as, how do you classifu "blight" in your neighborhood? And where do you live? MR. SCI{ANTZEN: I live on Canal Street, which is offof Bayshore. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On Canal Street. MR. SCHANTZEN: And it has to do with a lot of indigents and vagrants that are in the area, and the drugs and stuff like that come into the area and are kind of rooted in ways that the plan and the activity -- working with the county agencies and the sheriffare focused to fight these problems and making them stay focused to fight and combat and clean up, including working with properly owners that aren't always cooperative that have these properties that sometimes facilitate them and also working with the sheriffs attomeys and the County Attomey on giving the tools to the law enforcement and Code Enforcement to properly go about and combat these issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How does this CRA deal with that? Because everything you've said has to do with political will, political direction, and, of course, community involvement with the other agencies within the county, whether it's the Sheriffs Office, Code Enforcement, or other issues, but the CRA specifically, the only way they can deal with blight, at least in this documen! is, of course, through maybe community meetings but also in dealing with the zoning and overlays, and what it really means is we're going to convert what is -- you want to use the word "substandard housing." We're going to try and buy up those substandard housing and build what is deemed to be adequate housing. I don't know. That's the only thing I could see that the CRA is going to do to solve your problem. MR. SCHANTZEN: In with it also becomes money available to do the outreach and help the residential areas improve with those landlords, go in partnerships with these landlord, they improve their properties. The mobile homes types thing is working with the property owners and replacement and things, taking funds and programs available. In the Florida Statutes that creates the CRA, I read that there is different programs that are within the capability of the CRA to do. And I'm here to support anlhing that can be coordinated locally, and identified, which we have been doing with our regular CRA meetings and stuffwith the outreach with the sheriff and Code Page 23 of 52 f March 21,2019 Enforcement, very informative and very positive in nature of working towards those objectives of taking some of the problem areas and going -- focus more residential in the problem areas than towards the commercial environmental which, in itself, is starting to flourish and go. You just need to grab and tag the residential in the lower income housing element into it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You answered my question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question. CI{AIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, sir, for advocating for your area, and your area is important to us, too, and we want to do what can be done to help out in that way, and that's the whole thrust of the redevelopment plan. We want to get it as good as possible. First point you just made was about crime and drugs, vagrancy and the like. I was surprised not to see -- well, I don't think I saw a single reference in this consultant's report, at least not any that took it in significant detail, that perhaps that's where we should be spending more money on law enforcement, perhaps, streetlighting. There are other conventional and high technology ways of reducing the kinds of problems that you just mentioned, and so I was surprised that that is either not at all treated in here or maybe was mentioned but certainly not with much emphasis. But what would your view be on more law enforcement infrastructure of that kind? MR. SCHANTZEN: Okay. In my preview of the document and working with the document, like I says, I wasn't on board the -- as a member when this got made. I just -- my first board meeting is coming up. But through the process of reading this, I do see where they do address the blight and the community outreach and different things. In fact, they've already started doing some things they have not done in the past with the community outreach and stufl which made me very active in the situation. With the streetlightings and stuff like that, they also have that going in. And as stated, this is a menu for -- of what we would like to see happen in our area of -- generalized a lot of things and some of them are pointed. One of the things that as a CRA board member, I -- and my opinion is asked for or what my priorities are out of this menu list of what we work towards, and that's the steps on the near term, one to three years, five to whatever, and going out 30 is what you basically look at, what you would like to try and accomplish and what the priorities are that you want the CRA to work towards and apply the funds to in the near term, mid term, and long term. Keeping focus on this and also things that externally come in via development or other suggestions. And so the blight and the vagtant and a lot of crime issues or whatever are, with me, a very short term looking for solutions in the short term, which there's different aspects of what's in here and, per the Florida Statutes that created the CRA, let us do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me, if I may, if you accept for a moment as a premise my belief that there's hardly anything in here about law enforcement and technology and resources -- law enforcement infrastructure, would it be fair to say that you'd prefer to see more done and spent in that area? MR. SCIIANTZEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Now, my next question has to do with what are being called complete streets. You're familiar with that concept? MR. SCHANTZEN: Yes,I am. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There were some pictures in the consultant's report, and pretty much in each case the -- to create the complete street will involve taking geography away from automobile lanes. Now, on some streets in East Naples that could be a very good idea and could promote the objectives that we're all seeking to promote, but in others I think it could create some serious issues: Traffic congestion being greater, safety hazards. If you do have more pedestrians and bikers in close proximity to automobiles, that's worrisome. Now, I agree -- Mr. Eastman's gone, but I agree with his point with sidewalks, but the pictures that we saw are preffy elaborate illustrations of bringing automobiles and pedestrians and bicyclists in close proximity. What is your view of having more complete streets in this area? Page 24 of 52 March 21,2019 MR. SCI{ANTZEN: Nothing happens in a vacuum in this. I've been involved -- I've lived in this residence for 3O-plus years, and I've been to the neighborhood meetings as a resident during the process of wanting to do different things. They take the community's input and adjust; in other words, they're not just going to simply come out and say take 4l and choke everybody off on 41 to do this elaborate plan. That wouldn't fly with the residents, and so it's unlikely that it would move that much funher ahead. And on the same point, when it's decided that we want to look at something down a dead-end street of doing, say, your sidewalk or your swales and stuff like that, in coming through and redoing all your swales with sidewalks and everything on some of these dead-end cul-de-sac streets, you're actually taking away the character ofthat street. So the amount of foot and bicycle traffic that you get on a block long going down to a cul-de-sac or a dead street with no access to nothing else down there except other residential streets, putting in a sidewalk is kind of like just put a sign at the end saying "sidewalk ends here," which doesn't make any sense to anybody, and I really wouldn't want to see one of those signs on my street saying -- the government telling me that the sidewalk ends here. I think I could figure that out. And that's the same thing with choking roads down -- like thinking of going from four lanes on Bayshore down to two lanes. Well, that won't fly because the residents don't want it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let me follow up on that point, because that was exactly the street I was going to mention next. Is it fair for me to assume, then, that you and your neighbors, properly owners down there, would not like to see the consequences of complete streets on the heavier trafficked streets? MR. SCHANTZEN: No. Well, you when use the term "complete streets," it's kind of an all-encompassing thing, because what you end up with actually is a modification for that area that you're looking at, taking into consideration other things. One of the things they're doing now is Thomasson down there towards the pickleball courts and stuff and with a roundabout going in. And this whole process has taken a very, very long time to get to, and that particular street or area needs a lot of help and a lot of things taken into consideration to get there inclusive of the pickleball courts becoming the world, you know, focus. So all this information comes in to help design what you're trying to accomplish, and taking a particular street or a particular thoroughfare, it's going to take a lot of input from the public and from the residents in that area and input from the Transportation Department and everybody else before everything comes to fruition. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you going to be able to stay around for a while, sir, because I've got more questions? But I think the lady behind you, maybe I should ask some of her as well. MR. SCHANTZEN: You want me to go over to the side? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Unless somebody else wants to ask you a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask a question also? You said you've lived in that area for 30 years? MR. SCHANTZEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: What trend have you seen in terms of -- we're talking about the conditions of blight. What trends have you seen over the last 18 years since this initial current CRA was implemented in terms of improvement? More the same? Has it gotten better, worse, or stayed the same? MR. SCI{ANTZEN: Oh, could I tell you stories. I could tell you stories after stories, from the start, from the day I moved in to now. Positive, continuous. We have our dips because we get different times of year and everybody else comes and they bring their relatives to stay in the woods and stuff. So, I mean, it's Whac-A-Mole. They're playing Whac-A-Mole, you know -- I mean, that's just the nature of the beast, and what it is is coming up with a solution to solve the beast, period. But I have seen, working with the CRA, your local Sheriff, Code Enforcement, the different departments, absolute -- and the commissioners, working with the Board of County Commissioner people, positive, very much positive improvement. But the people that we're dealing with have leamed they have constitutional rights, and we have to bring Page 25 of 52 March 21,2019 our combat to a dif[erent level within the realm of the law, because now some of those tools that these people had are no longer useful, and being creative in that aspect besides with the arts and stuff like that. We're being very creative there. We need some of the energy on the other thing, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're joining the board, the CRA board, correct? MR. SCI{ANTZEN: Yes,I am. COMMISSIONER FRY: So how do you look at this document, this vision statement? Do you look at this as a menu and a charter that then facilitates your efforts to be able to choose what you want to do and prioritize that and come back through the process to effect change? MR. SCHANTZEN: Yeah, and also some of the things that we get focused in here that we would like or should or could do, I can understand needing the process to go to the Land Development Code change, stuff like -- things that need a little bite to it regulatory-wise or pattern-wise to narrow it down towards where we want to go. I look at the document as it's a moving piece of paper, moving document, and when it was created in 2000, the document was -- original document was created in 2000, it was created by a lot of people with a little background in the area that -- now there's a lot of people with a lot of background in this document, that through the process -- because I actually sat in the audience through public comment while this document was being made as a nonmember and watched the process and watched the input from the community in order to update this document. So the original document was a good document to start with. The CRA is good towards what it was accomplishing, but the priorities of the people and stuff like that, the committee members dictate what happens in the CRA, whereas, I mean -- and then they bring that up to the Board of County Commissioners and stuff. And you guys are reviewing the idea, so to speak. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there any,thing glaringly missing from this vision in your opinion? MR. SCHANTZEN: Glaringly? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. MR. SCHANTZEN: Like you say, there's areas where some things are spoken only a little bit of, but being mentioned is as big part to me -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Is enough. MR. SCIIANTZEN: -- as -- I kind of look at it as marketing. Sometimes you market this because you think that's where everything wants to go, but you mention and give courtesy to this. But just the mere mention of courtesy of this gives you the right to go there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Gotcha. All right. Thankyou. MR. SCHANTZEN: All right. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOSI: The next speaker is Donna McGinnis. MS. McGINNIS: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name's Donna McGinnis. I'm president and CEO of Naples Botanical Garden. And we just wanted to be here today to thank you for the investment of time in taking a look at the Bayshore CRA proposal, the plan that you have in front of you for the budget to develop this plan, for a process that really listened to those of us who live and work around the area, and to our colleagues on the CRA advisory board, a group that's worked really hard and gained a lot of citizen input to put it forward. So a lot of people have invested a lot of time in it, and Deborah for her leadership, and the county's staff, too. It really has been an impressive process and one that we're excited to see happening. On Bayshore, we have really engaged businesses and organizations. Obviously, we have really engaged citizens that live there, but I think those of us that are running businesses or organizations are very collaborative. We've excited to see something like this, and it gives us a framework to work with each other. So, you know, we want to send business to each other, we want to build the economic impact of Bayshore and the good that it can do, and this really helps us to do that. At the Botanical Gardens -- so we're very different than what is in the original plan when we were on the Page 26 of 52 March 21, 2019 other l7 acres. Sojust as a reference point right now, the Botanical Garden this year will reach attendance of about 250,000 visitors, we've got an annual operating budget of $10 million and more than 100 staff. So we really are proud ofthat, but we also realize we're an anchor in Bayshore. Having a plan like this is going to be helpful to us as we shategically look at our next investments in programming for the citizens, in capital developments that we do on our campus, on the next things that we want to do to serve the county, to serve the city, to bring visitation into our area. So having something like this is going to be helpful as we go forward and strategize how the Garden is going to continue to grow. We expect our audience to continue to expand, but what we want to make sure we're doing is - what we're doing is doing it in a way that is really going to leverage an add-value. So thank you again for taking a look at it. We're very supportive of it and excited to be part of it going forward. CI{AIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to -- okay. MR. SIIERMAN: My name is Mike Sherman. I'm a member of the advisory board. I'm a resident in the area, actually in Windstar, but I'm also somebody who has, as a retired real estate executive, taken on a - call it hobby -- somewhere between hobby, philanthropy, and business to create a series ofhomes on one ofthe streets in Bayshore. So I've had kind of an interesting time working my way through understanding the political side of this as a member ofthe advisory board but also living with trying to develop individual small homes in the area. Al said, it's a mix ofdifferent things. A lot offocus has been taken on complete streets. Complete streets to me was a way of focusing on bringing upgrades to an area. The blight issue in this case is that I 8 years ago - by the way, the CRA has invested relatively little during these l8 years because ofa 10-year recession. If you think about how the money has developed in this thing, the recession had a huge impact. There's been very little money flowing from the CRA in the last l0 years. And only in, really, the last five years have we had real success, and most ofthat success has come because the CRA has focused the activity in the area and shown a vision of what could be. Businesses like mine building homes, like Rebecca Maddox's retail enterprises at 360 Market and now the Celebration Park, the food truck park. The CRA has been very important to us in an aspirational sense. But if you were to go to Rebecca and ask her how much money the CRA has put directly to her, it's, you know, probably a quarter of 1 percent ofher investment oftime and money and so on. But it has been very important that there was a commitment by the govemment and by the neighborhood to make itself something different and better and special, and that's affected me greatly and, in fact, we're having success. Some ofyour comments concem me because success has a way of saying, okay, well, you've had enough ofyour success now. We really arejust beginning to have that success. And ifyou dig under the obvious pieces ofthe success and you look at a report like this, they'll take a picture ofone small success. One ofmy homes was in there. It's a somewhat atypical structure in this neighborhood when you go down there. It's more than somewhat atypical. It's quite afpical. So as we're having these little successes, ifyou go down there yourselfand walk these streets, you won't have any trouble finding blight. You won't have any trouble finding the problems that Al runs into. These neighborhoods undemeath are still struggling with economic distress and various types structures that are unsafe and wom out and so on, and the neighborhood needs this focusing power; so one ofmy points, I guess, that I felt compelled to speak on. The other one is kind ofthe idea of streets and what you brought up about cars and pedestrians and streets. And on Bayshore itself, our biggest problem, frankly, is it was -- Bayshore is designed as a highway. It's not a highway. It shouldn't be a highway. It should be a village center. And it shouldn't be a place where people go fast. But with a street that's designed with four lanes, two each way, people travel at 50 miles an hour on that. That's not a safe way to travel. We don't have that heavy a level ofcars on the street and probably never will. And to the degree we make a highway out of it, all we're doing is opening up a highway for the residents ofthe Page 21 of 52 March 21,2019 Isles of Collier Preserve, I ,500 homes that's right adjacent to us, to use that street as another way of getting to 4l or downtown and to go fast; and all of us go too fast on that street because of the design of the street. So there's some real needs to kind of try to look at that area as to what it is evolving into, which is another neighborhood in the urban center of Collier County and a kind of unique and different one. So I hope you will look at these documents as somewhat aspirational but also understand that there is an evolution happening, but it is a long way from being some kind of roaring success. It is exciting to us, and we will spend a lot of time focusing on those successes. But go down on those streets and see what this idea of conglomerating people into a focused idea is hugely important to getting this place to be what it can be. That's my point. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thankyou. Anybody else? MR. GUTIERREZ: Good morning. Maurice Gutierrez. I'm currently the chairman of the advisory board. I've lived on Bayshore since '78, so the changes are always positive. The challenge of when you use the word "blight" is, I think, a little bit misconceived because when you use the term "mobile homes," you think of a mobile home community like Moorhead Manor. It's gated. It's a community. But what we have endured through non-zoning compliance over the years is we have actually 40-foot-by-90-foot lots with mobile homes from the '50s across the street from C5 commercial warehousing. Now, that's really difficult to find anywhere else in the county other than possibly Immokalee. Again, those are areas that were initially developed so long ago, then they went to sleep. In the 18 years that I've been involved with the CRA as a member, everything to the north has been developed, yet nothing in our neighborhood has. So you've got to ask, how can that be? That's easy. All that was vacant land. Much easier to develop vacant land than to redevelop. So in the years we've been trying to eliminate blight we go in and buy certain properties that were identified by the Sheriffs Office as drug havens; buy the property, demolish the site, and hopefully give an incentive to a developer to bring in something current. If this would not have evolved, I would tell you Bayshore would be a very different place today. Bill Neal initiated the CRA concept with the commissioners back when he created or helped create the CRA, and that vision played through because of -- those who were here will recall; Bayshore was one lane with a wooden bridge. I noticed a concern about streetscapes and complete streets. There has been an attempt to reduce Bayshore to one lane, and I'll tell you the community, as they have always done at our meetings, let us know, as well as I feel the same way, that's going backwards. We're not going to reduce traflic by increasing density. We're not going to reduce the flow of people by allowing more development. But to one of your questions that was asked about, show me an example of where increased density has changed our areas. Look at Mattamy Homes; they're currently building, developing in a site that was dilapidated rental housing, which was called Cantamar (phonetic). It's got nice lakes. We're not huppy it's gated but, unfortunately, we can't control properties that we don't own. We do own mobile home lots that have been purchased for redevelopment, and we try to work with developers, but it's really difficult when they're busy elsewhere in the county. Particularly in the last l0 years, as was mentioned earlier with the financial impact, we were really hurt. I will note that the previous commission was more in favor of disbanding us than supporting us. So I'm really happy to work with the current commissioners because they don't share that vision of, oh, God, the CRA's not working, let's get rid of them because we need the money, and that's ultimately what it was. 'We've tried to be really cost conscious with the dollars that we have spent. And despite the individual infill properties that we have bought to eliminate blight in those areas, the two big ones were the Triangle and the 17 acres, which we are continuously focusing on developing. And I think those will be our signature pieces. But I will say that in the redevelopment of our area, we have found it's more important to make sure we get it right than hurry up and do it. Because the way it was was wrong, and we're trying to correct that wrong within the existing rules, Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, and sometimes it's really Page 28 of 52 March 21, 2019 difficult to tell the developer, oh, you know, we can offer you an incentive to build on a small lot. Oh, but, by the way, the guidelines won't let you build anlthing. But, come on, give us ideas. So that whole redevelopment challenge is constantly with us. And until you get away from the main street and look at where the dead-ends go and what's there, you realize, unfortunately, for our neighborhood, how neglected property owners have profited and ignored the full-time residences (sic) that occupy our homes. But the other challenge is everything there was built before the '70s, pretty much. On my personal street, which is only 16 lots in length, on - that's a dead-end, it's water access. My home was built in'68. There's a home that was built, cost 1.3; so the diversity is there. But also, we have really nonconforming code issues, because on my waterfiont street, we have thrce lots consisting of 16 efficiency units that is a cash cow for the owner. We have tried to get him to come on board, change what he does because ofthe availability ofthe waterfront and, yet, all they're interested in is to rent by the week, skate paying taxes, claiming they have a six-month-plus-one-day lease, and it's really difficult to battle that kind ofengrained mentality. And I have found by chairing this board and being on the committee how many residents come out to us at our meetings to say, I need help, I need assistance, I need a way to alter what's going on; where if we wouldn't be here, I don't believe there would be very many positive changes on Bayshore. As far as main Bayshore is concemed, there's a reason Pelican Bay Boulevard is two lanes -- is four lanes with a median. I like to think we're the same way, because it really makes a statement. And I don't feel the property owners or our board would ever consider reducing that fourJane to two, because that's kind ofgoing backwards for accessibility. And we know the gowth is in our backyard, because there's nothing left to the north. So we are now front and center and in a microscope, and hopefully we're setting the stage for investors to come in with ideas that are going to benefit our neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair, question. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to ask you, sir, about bicyclists and pedestrials. It's sort of demographics kinds of questions at present. Who are the people who are riding bikes now? Are they people who are commuting to work? Are they kids going to school? And what about the pedestrians? Who are they? And what are the age groups? And do you find - this is a compound question, I'm sorry. But do you find that the commercial interests in that area are being as well served by bicyclists and pedestrians as they are or would be by automobile traffic coming in to patronize the stores? MR. GUTIERREZ: On your first point, I think it's very diverse from pleasure, retirees, workers. We see it, unfortunately -- we have taken the steps, I think the only neighborhood in the counry that actually designated a painted bike lane. We worked with FDOT on that, and we're very familiar with when we attempt to do something, the county's position of we're not an FDOT road, but we want to follow FDOT standards. Having said that, the redesign ofThomasson will include a designated painted $een bike lane for bicycle/pedestrians but, as you can ask the sheriffs who attend our meetings every month, everybody uses the bike lanes in the opposite direction, which is hazardous for drivers, but fortunately maybe 90 - maybe 80 percent of all our streets in our district -- and I'll speak more on Bayshore than the Triangle - are dead-ends. So owners that live there are aware ofthis. So it isn't that we have a constant flow of traffic out ofthe side streets that would then lead to more accidents and a safety issue. I'm personally very familiar, when you pull out, you better look right to see the guy going the wrong way. And it's a battle I don't think we'll ever win, but we try to designate the area for bicycle commuting by doing the FDOT standard ofthe bike lane. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In your experience down there -- you're really an expert in that area - if there were more bikes and fewer automobiles, how would that serve the business interest; poorly or well? MR. GUTIERREZ: I think it's going to increase both pedestrian and bike traffic, but it's going to improve Page 29 of 52 March 21,2019 in a way where, as development comes in, I'd just as soon, from my house, walk to Celebration Park and, shortly, to the new brewery than drive, because it's a couple of blocks away. Bicycling, the same way. But we have really not been able to capitalize on the commercial district. Again, old neighborhood, small lots. The CRA this year took the initiative to buy a vacant lot on Bayshore to turn it into a public parking area so that these businesses that are projecting to come here won't be turned away because the Growth Management Plan says you need X number of parking, and they now can't meet that because of the square footage of the propefty. So we hope to continue allowing those new businesses not to be restricted that way and give them the opportunity like the City of Naples has done with their parking garages where businesses can take those parking spaces as parking credits and allow development to occur. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all the questions I have, Chair. CFIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? (No response.) MR. GUTIERREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak or -- (No response.) CFIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So we want to go through this document; how about section by section? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm fine with that. I think we -- my questions went all the way through section -- to Section 4, and if we want to start at Section 5 then -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Section 5 is what we'd be -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and go through page by page, we can ask questions. I think Section 4 is clear that it's the old -- it's the original Immokalee plan which is never -- it needs to be updated, so that's an issue. But we'll address that when we discuss voting for the approval. So I would recommend we start at Section 5 and just go page by page. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Section -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess to make it clear -- CFIAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- 5.0. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm on the -- we can go by the plan page or the packet page. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Plan page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Plan page, okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So that's 5-E-1 to start Section 5, executive summary. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: First page, and the next page is a map. Then there will be another conceptual plan diagram. Is there anything? COMMISSIONER FRYER: My fnst question is going to come at Page 5-E-6. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My first question is 5-E-9, so 5-E-6. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I guess this is more for the consultant than staff, and it has to do with projected costs -- well, costs -- let's take it at large. How much money is in the till right now? I take it that 1999 was the base year for the TIF. How much money has been accumulated to this date? MS. FORESTER: I have to get that pulled up. I know the current year TIF that they received in 2018 was 1.5 million, and it has gone up and down over the course of the last l7 years, because their frst TIF came in in 2001. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do we have atotal? MS. FORESTER: Yeah. So the total that they've received is $20 million. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that money is in trust? MS. FORESTER: The money has been spent. So in the redevelopment plan, you can't just keep it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Twenty in and 20 out? MS. FORESTER: Basically. We have some in reserves in escrow to assure that we are paying off our Page 30 of 52 March 21,2019 debt that we have accumulated. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, the budget, was it like 60-something million projected out; is that a correct number? I'm trying to do this from memory. MR. JOHNSON: For the entire 30 years? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. JOHNSON: The 30-year period? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's -- yeah. MR. JOHNSON: I think it's more than that. MS. FORESTER: I think it's 1.4 million -- or 154 million. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that's -- that is, what, the present value projected out, orjust dollars? MR. JOHNSON: Those would just be dollars. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, of that amount, the 150 million, how much of those dollars are noncapital costs? MR. JOHNSON: Let me get my calculator out here. All right. So there we go; better. I pulled up my table here. So the total noncapital costs that we had put in the budget for the 30-year period was $69 million. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So 69 of 150 something. MR. JOHNSON: Of 154-. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And the balance would be for capital projects. MR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. I saw about l5 or 20 different iterations of these costs throughout your document, and they weren't identical. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They were largely consistent, but they were not identical. And so it seems to me it would be a good idea if we had one iteration that you cross-referenced or repeated, if necessary, so that we could see what that was. And on it -- I mean, a lot of it was what I would call soft costs; master planning, staffing, marketing and communications, funding, public art funding, other noncapital costs that -- so if you look at the nature of these costs, to me the amount seems excessive, and I would suggest strongly that we revisit that and redirect more of the money to the capital costs, if possible. MS. FORESTER: I just also want to clari$ in those soft costs we were just talking about neighborhood focus initiatives. So any community policing activities, staff time that is addressing additional code enforcement, that could all come out of that. That also includes grants that go to the residents and the business owners within that community in order to improve the blighted conditions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You might want to reword it then. But just the way it's been presented, it seems to me that an excessive amount of money has been set aside for what I would call soft costs. But if you're including law enforcement money or lighting or technology or things to improve on that, I think this would be more presentable if it were referenced in here; at least it would for me. MR. JOHNSON: May I also make a point? Back to your earlier, the actually pre-break discussion, one of the -- probably the largest expenditures within the noncapital side has -- really fits within probably what you were mentioning about validation. Because this is an aspirational document which provides a menu of potential options and directions, ultimately anything that requires validation or detailed planning is going to need to be funded, and so that detailed planning, that design, you know, that analysis that needs to occur in the future would have to be undertaken by the CRA, or at least the CRA would like to be able to undertake that, so that's why we set aside a significant amount of money over time for those purposes, whether it be transportation, complete-streets related safety, any of those items as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. My personal opinion, and that's all it is, would be that I'd like to see more study done to support where you're going to be recommending complete streets, a study that isn't generic but a study that has to do with the actual street in question, whether it's Bayshore or Thomasson or another street, because, you know, I think it's fairly debatable, particularly when you can see it - and I believe you Page 31 of 52 March 21,2019 have -- that complete streets is going to result in more congestion, that there has to be a positive tradeoffthat you're going to be getting in return for accepting -- MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. And a couple points would be there is one street that was noted as a potential to reduce lanes, and that was Bayshore, and that's the only one within the plan document that was part of a recommendation that said a reduction of lanes, actual travel lanes. And as has been mentioned by some of the folks who spoke today, Maurice and others, that is very much something that, from further discussions as we've -- even through the plan development process, is nothing -- if it ever occurs, is not going to occur anytime in the near future. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I agree, and there was -- there was a difference of opinion, legitimate differences of opinion expressed by the speakers. So I strongly suggest that when you come in, if the recommendation is complete street for Bayshore, that it be supported by empirical information that deals directly with conditions on Bayshore. MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of what the consequences, intended and unintended, would be. MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question goes to 5E7, and that is the first place where Windstar is referred to. And as Commissioner Schmitt mentioned, I, too, was startled when I saw a suggestion that the redevelopment area be expanded. It seems to me that Windstar should be pulled out of the area; that it should be potentially contracted. Because of success that's been achieved, that would be a place where I think we could pat ourselves on the back and say, you know, that's not a blighted area anymore and should come out. MR. KLATZKOW: Except that when you start taking out the prosperous areas of a CRA, you wind up having no TIF left. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. MR. KLATZKOW: Think of -- think of a TIF almost as an investment fund where you're trying to take the money, invest it in an area, have that area now no longer be blighted, but then you're taking the income you're capturing from that area, from the TIF, to then go to another area in the CRA and bring that area up. Now, sooner or later, if you follow that, the entire area will no longer be blighted and you will no longer need the CRA. But if you start taking out the areas that you've already expanded economically, you financially handicap the entire CRA. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand that. My only question, though, would be that if we were to extend this for 15 years or 30 years, would the more affluent neighborhoods, then, just continue to be, you know, well, frankly, burdened with the tax? MR. KLATZKOW: There's not an additional tax. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it's a set-aside for the are4 so I guess they would -- MR. KLATZKOW: They're not burdened by an additional tax. MR. EASTMAN: They're actually benefiting -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the rest of the county is burdened. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: But their immediate neighborhood is being improved right down the street, and their neighbors -- their neighboring properties are being improved, so they're actually benefiting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get that concept and -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's actually -- if you've lived here for 30 years -- I don't know. Did you ever see Kelly Road? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, you would understand and you wouldn't be questioning so much, I don't think, if you do, because it wasn't a nice place. It was full of prostitutes and drugs and one-lane road. The reason why this started in the first place is because of Windstar. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: They wanted the area improved. They wanted the road. They want the Page 32 of 52 March 2L,2019 landscaping. This is something that they wanted changed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not taking a position on it. I was just looking for explanation, and I think I've gotten that. My next question is on Page 5-E-9, but you want to go first, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. My question on 5E9 under Section 5, Windstar, you tabbed this sentence, complete streets MSTU improvements along major community roadways. Those roadways that are cited are not part of Windstar. Now, they're the -- they impact Windstar because of the approach to Windstar. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So what's the intent of identifuing it under that -- under Windstar? MR. JOHNSON: Well -- and, frankly, from this particular section where you're talking about -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that does correspond to the map above it. MR. JOHNSON: So Windstar being a master planned community that has its own private infrastructure within the development itself, there weren't any discussions necessarily about putting CRA money on to making improvements within Windstar itself, but going to that idea of the value added of making sure that the entries, the roadways, the commercial district and all of that leading to Windstar was improved, that was what that was discussion about. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I think you just need to clarifu, because that sentence really should be under 6 and just say -- and just clariff. The intent, just as you said, this is -- the major objective for the Windstar area is to make sure that the streets approach into Windstar are what you want in the CRA to promote economic growth and development or redevelopment. Just a comment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mine, on the same page, is just a request for a status report, and perhaps Mr. Bosi would be the best one to ask. With the mini-triangle and Davis, there were two segments there, the Triad project, which I guess has gone back to square one, and then one -- was it the Starkey interest -- that came before us. Could you bring us up to date on those two segments? MR. BOSI: They are currently in agreement in terms of access to the property, which there was a debate over. But right now they are in the process of evaluating whether the Trio project would be subject to a floor area ratio. There's an appeal that's currently being processed by the county. So right now both of those projects tend -- seem to be within a holding pattern from moving forward until some of these other questions in terms of applicability of some of the zoning regulations are sorted out through the process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I then go to 5E10. No, that's been answered already. Never mind. And my financial questions on 5E11 have been answered. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm up to 14, so I'll defer till 14. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And that question has been answered. Oh, reference on -- I guess it was -- well, on 14, but go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only question, I did not recognize the term "Naples Steel." Was that a former site of Naples Steel, or is that an existing facility? MR. JOHNSON: That's the former site that is now -- I don't remember -- Woodgate Suites Hotel, I think, is what that was. So it's referred to as the Naples Steel site in the previous plan, the 2000, and we talk about how that's now been redeveloped in this new -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would just clariff in this that is no longer Naples Steel, because I think they're relocated, if I recall. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I came here in 2002, so I just didn't recognize the site. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I go to 5-3-37, so... CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The next page, the town center, of course, a significant issue there with Page 33 of 52 March 21,2019 the Gulf GatePlaza. You just discuss all those. The only issue I have is where it says entertainment center and Haldeman Creek. It's the 60 (sic) Market, need for commercial parking has emerged as an issue. I have to question how did 360 Market get approved without the sufficient parking? I mean, sort of the -- we have requirements for development. That's a rather new development, and it's very limited parking. COMMISSIONER FRY: You mean Celebration Park? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, it's called 360 Market. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the restaurant to the south of Haldeman Creek. The food truck park is called Celebration Park to the north which has very limited parking, which I know that's a site that's very limited in parking. But 360 as a restaurant has its own full parking lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Adequate parking? MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But Celebration Park is just the new development just north. It has eight food trucks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it says, need for commercial parking has emerged as an issue in this area. So are we talking about the restaurant, then, or -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Food tmck. MR. KLATZKOW: We're talking about the food truck park, which has been far more successful than originally thought, so it has far more traffic needs than was originally planned for. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Lots of traffic. MR. BOSI: And just as a sidenote, this commission will be hearing a parking exemption for an off-site parking lot for that food -- for the food truck park in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. We have -- clearly have clear requirements for parking requirements in redevelopment, and this now is saying we now have to add additional parking for something that -- 360 is a new market, is it not? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it is, and they do have a new parking lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, you cite here that it needs parking. CIIAIRMAN HOMIAK: It was a restaurant before. It was the Tipsy Seagull. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was the tipsy Seagull, right. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. JOHNSON: I think in general we're speaking more generally for that area, and there are, you know, as new commercial developments are coming in, some of them may be reusing existing buildings with existing parking lots without doing a full redevelopment of an actual building. And so in those instances, what we're suggesting is that we know that as a commercial note this is becoming a challenge and that the CRA should be more proactive in helping to address it. And I think that's one of the reasons why they're working on a parking lot right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I go all the way to 46, Joe. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's a good number, 46. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 5-3-46. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm on Page 17. Just a general statement, and I didn't -- I know you lay out under Bayshore Drive landscaping there is an MSTU. MR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I believe in the plan -- I'd have to go back and look -- that you clearly delineate the revenue -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- supported the MSTU versus the CRA. MR. JOHNSON: Right. And that's very much something that -- I mean, las! I don't know, a month ago, I think, there was a joint meeting between the MSTUs and the CRA advisory boards, and there was this Page 34 of 52 March 21,2019 discussion about, you know, coordination. And throughout this plan, what we realized is that, from public involvement and stakeholder discussions, there's a lot of shared interests, of course, between these different entities. And so, ultimately, we're not necessarily saying the MSTU's going to do anything. We're just saying that there is this revenue source and that the CRA and the MSTU should definitely coordinate to share those revenue sources because the MSTU has in its purview to make some improvement that would also be consistent with what the CRA could do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And the MSTU clearly is a -- they're a self-tax -- they're taxing themselves -- MR. JOHNSON: They're taxing themselves. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to support the streetscape and beautification. MR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I think that's an important distinction. MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. We're five -- Section 5-1, and I'm paging through this. That's a lot ofbackground. Just a general statement, 5-2- 1, the Gulf Gate Plaza and town center, significant issues, of course, for redevelopment, but that -- that's, again, enticements in locating someone who's going to invest in coming into that property and redeveloping it. MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. And just as a side, we talked to the owner of that plaza as well to kind of discuss their model and how they're doing and what their vision might be. So that's going to be a longer-term conversation, as it's been since 2000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On Page 5-2-2, unsanitary and safe conditions, disproportionate lack of plumbing. Can you explain, is that a code issue? Is it -- it's not the lack of sufficient fire-suppression issues, but this is a lack of plumbing. I mean, do we have structures there that are deemed uninhabitable because they don't have sufficient plumbing? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's hydrants, isn't it? MR. JOHNSON: So there is an issue of -- first of all, this is word-for-word taken from the original finding of necessity, so it's not necessarily something that we determined ourselves. This was from the original founding document. However, there is an issue of -- particularly on some of the residential streets, the fire-suppression issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I understand that issue. MR. JOHNSON: So that would fit into a plumbing issue of -- that the CRA can invest money in, and they have been coordinating with the City of Naples on that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I would call that more of an infrastructure issue, but okay. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The next statement, poor drainage of local roads. Of course, I think that should be a priority of the TIF and, you know, that's something -- both a priority of the TIF, but it's an issue throughout the county in regards to stormwater, stormwater management. MR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just a general statement. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm paging down through. I'm all the way to page -- I mean, there are -- in some of the pages you continue to cite affordable housing. I just want to make sure you're consistent in your thoughts. I'm not going to get into that. Page 5-2-7,this is -- again, were initiatives of the 2000 plan, which you cite. You talk about streetlighting and traffic calming, park connections. These are all still standing requirements, are they not? Wetland and flooding considerations, of course that's a requirement. Any structure there now has to meet FEMA standards and base flood elevation requirements. Page 35 of 52 March 21,2019 ( S imultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. JOHNSON: Yes. I think the issue here is just to say that based on, you know, these neighborhood focus initiatives from the 2000 plan, we -- the CRA will continue with that type of work throughout the residential communities. There's a lot of discussion about the commercial areas and so forth, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done and a lot of older areas within the residential that you can still invest in, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Next page, Triangle stormwater management. And you make a recommendation that you update the stormwater management plan for the entire CRA. Is there a separate stormwater management plan for the CRA? MR. JOHNSON: There is a master plan that was completed. I don't remember the year off the top of my head. I want to say it was 2006 or 2007. We did talk with county staffa little bit about that plan, and what we agreed to was -- because that plan, while it does serve as guidance, wasn't necessarily something that the county was utilizing to aim projects or target projects. So what we talked about with them was let's revisit that. The CRA should revisit that with them to make sure that it's consistent with their direction now so they can kind of connect those two, integtate those two. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's in the appendix. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I know it's in the appendix. But, you know, this is, of course, an issue in the county. They want to have a stormwater tax. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's sufficient issues with stormwater. One would argue that that should be part of the General Fund and funded -- it's a political decision. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the CRA can certainly tax itself to solve this problem. Of course, it's -- you would have to -- or the -- you'd have to create an MSTU or some other entity to solve the problem which, again, puts the burden on the property owners in that area, or you make it a priority of the CRA to fund it. MR. JOHNSON: It is. The way we have framed it in this document is we have set aside money for the purposes of completing the updated study, and that would be in much more coordination with the counff, public works folks -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stormwater. MR. JOHNSON: -- stormwater folks just to make sure that we are all on the same page with the types of projects we need and where those projects are and get updated cost estimates. But I do think it's the CRA's intent to -- wherever possible to try to find funding, whether it be through TIF or whether through -- they've been using CDBG. We've done grant applications to make stormwater improvements. That's something the CRA staff has been doing. Now that there is some more TIF and there may be -- there hopefully will continue to be actual TIF on a regular basis, that money will be available for those types of improvements as well. So I think it's a question of coordination first with the county to make sure that you're on the same page with the folks who are actually spending the capital dollar. And if there are things that the CRA can be doing and they can agree to after working with the county, then the CRA can step up and make those decisions and spend that money. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Then it will become a decision. Because you'll compete with everybody else in regards to this -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) TI{E COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You guys are talking over each other. I can't get you when he's talking. MR. JOHNSON: Go ahead. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You'll compete with everyone else in regards to the stormwater -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- priorities. If you want to solve the problem, you can solve it separately and tax yourselves to fix the issue. Page 36 of 52 vI March 2lr20l9 MR. JOHNSON: Or through the use of TIF funds or grant applications or other funds that might be available, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm up to 5.3. I don't know, Ned, if you have any,thing. That's Page 5-3-3. I'm toggling through. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: He doesn't have anything till 5-3-47, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: For(y-six. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, man. Okay. Let me go down there and see. All the rest of the stuff is good stuffhere. Page 5-3-14, just Strategy l, and it says "innovative land uses." It says, "Coordinate with Collier Growth Management and Zoning Divisions to pilot innovative land uses." And the bullets down below, those are all the -- what you believe we need to do for innovative land uses. MR. JOHNSON: Some potential ideas for innovative land use and zoning strategies, I think, is what we were referring to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Flexible parking regulations. Is that -- MR. JOHNSON: Could that be something that -- you know, maybe there's an off-site parking lot or something like that to ease the burden of an individual use versus having to provide all the parking on site, if that's available. And those would be regulations that would come back to you-all in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. These are all -- would be -- MR. JOHNSON: Things that could come -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - definite impacts on the LDC or GMP, especially consideration within the coastal high-hazard area. Ned's all the way up to 47 . COMMISSIONER FRYER: Six. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On Page 24, design treatment and attributes. It just talks about the major gateway intersection and, of course, it discusses the MSTU. Again, that's -- you're implying there coordination with the MSTU and funding for the various improvements. MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. No other comment there. Page 528, I have a real problem with the statement, expansion of the CRA area to include -- the parks to the east should also be evaluated since it may facilitate making connections and other improvements. I would say, why not just extend the CRA all the way down to Collier Boulevard? You know, it's -- this is a general statement saying not only do we want to keep the CRA, not only do we want to extend the lifetime of the CRA, now we want to expand it. MR. JOHNSON: And there was a discussion -- and I think this language -- and there's probably one other place in the plan where it was mentioned as a possibility for consideration in the future of potential expansion, and that was something that came from discussions with the advisory board, not to just include the parks, but maybe some of that residential to the east as well. And all the plan does related to that is say you should consider -- it should be put on your list of potential things to talk to the Board of County Commissioners about in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's a political decision. MR. JOHNSON: fught, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just -- I mean, it says -- and you show pictures of the pickleball site and some of the others, and it's sort of -- again, my statement is, I could say I want to extend it all the way from Radio Road to down to, whatever, to 41, and all the way out to Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, I think that was more to connect Sugden. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah -- oh, I understand what they're doing. They want to connect Sugden, but... I'm on Page 33. Streamline and clarifu the development process. There's a second bullet, relationship of various applicable codes to each other: LDC, fire code, and building code. Page 37 of 52 March 21,2019 MR. JOHNSON: So there have been a lot of discussions within -- whether we're talking to staff or stakeholders throughout the process that -- particularly as it relates -- less to, say, building code, fire code, more to the Land Development Code and, particularly, how the overlay works. There's still a little -- it's still a little ambiguous in the wording as it exists today. And there has been some confusion just as to which rules apply when. And so all we're saying there is if and when you come back with any type of specific regulatory recommendations, that -- make sure that we try to clariff the language as much as possible as to which code or rules apply at what geographic location and when. Because the overlay does allow flexibility, which is great, but also for somebody who doesn't spend a lot of time in -- you know, working in Collier, it is a little ambiguous, and you can interpret it in a lot of different ways, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's an issue with every development in the county. You have the LDC, you have the fire code, which is a state code, and the building code, which is a state code. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you understand that. MR. JOHNSON: And I would say most of the -- truthfully, most of the issues brought up during this -- the conversations we've had had to do with -- actually within the plan in the code itself, so there would be things that you might have purview over because you do have the overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The fire review is now an integral part of the -- MR. JOHNSON: The site plan review and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- site plan review process. When I was in the counfz, it was controlled separately, but now it's part of Growth Management. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to assume it's improved the process somewhat; I hope. That was a big issue. The next Strategy,2, ofcourse, dedicated staff. Is there a -- does the CRA get priority in review process? I can't remember. Is there some -- any kind of -- like if it -- like, we have expedited review for affordable housing. Does CRA get expedited review as well? Is there something in the code? MR. BOSI: There's no specific fast-track program for a CRA review. If it met one of the qualifications for -- you know, for affordable housing then, therefore, if it was in the CRA, it would still gain that. But there's nothing specific to the CRA where they gain any priority in terms of reducing reviews times. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in the next sentence they say, establish a formal role for the CRA in the development review process. You're adding another step. You're -- MR. JOFINSON: Oh, yes, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now you're asking the CRA -- is that the CRA board? Advisory board? MR. JOHNSON: Or just staff, right. So we feel that this is something that -- and when I return -- well, one of the times when I return to talk to you-all, in April we'll be talking about some of the more specific observations that we see in the code that we think that you may want to consider revising in the future, right? A little bit more detailed. So, kind of, this is your generalized statements, and then we're going to come back in a few weeks and say, and this is what we meant from a more detailed -- but nothing to pass, just recommendations in our review. So, ultimately, there's been a -- there's been a lot of discussion about what is the role of CRA staff in the review of a site plan or a development; is it -- they don't have a formal seat at development review as far as, if it's a rezoning they don't -- you know, they don't provide comment. They often do -- are provided the site plans themselves, and they do comment at some level, but it's not a formal part of the process. So we think that's important to iron out a little bit more, because I think whether it's the CRA staffjust getting a designated person from, you know, Growth Management to be designated to CRA issues. Maybe that's something to add to somebody's job; not to add anything to somebody's job, but -- or maybe it's, hey, how do we get CRA staff more engaged in certain types of projects. Page 38 of 52 March 2lr20l9 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the overlay will clearly define review requirements, whether it's in the LDC or other criteria. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just bring up the point, if you're going to have someone in the CRA review this -- MR. JOHNSON: It could add -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's been done informally in the past. It's usually -- MR. JOHNSON: It still is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- meeting with the CRA informally, and then it goes through the submittal and review process. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you -- if that's what you want, that's fine. It's just -- it's just another step. So it's -- MR. JOHNSON: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not a -- it adds not to expediting the process. MR. JOHNSON: I didn't say it was all -- there weren't any conflicts in some of the recommendations but, yes, that is one that definitely needs to be ironed out, and we just want to make sure it was recognized. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On Page 34, Strategy 5, you, again, evaluate concepts of expanding the CRA. Just clariff -- ask that you -- make sure you clarifu to the Board that that's a thing you want to do. The other issue is going - under Strategy 5, impact fee offsets or payments over time. Been an issue discussed throughout the county, and it's just a good thought, just that there are legal issues. And my days in the coun$r, we used Tindale Oliver for our impact fee studies, and you understand the legalities. MR. JOHNSON: I'm pretty sure you still do. Not me personally. But I'm pretty sure they're still involved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And there are legalities issues in regards to the dualrational nexus and all the other things, okay. And I am all the way down to page -- we're moving along here. Page 40. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, still me. Under the mobile home upgrade program, this is under Strate gy 2. And under the SHIP, just so the other board members clearly understand, there's not what you call a lot of money in the SHIP program, and it's a pretty competitive process. I'm looking at -- I'm trying to read my notes here, if I can -- MR. JOHNSON: And I just wanted to clariff those are existing programs that we just wanted to make sure that you understood they're out there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, yeah, they're out there. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, by the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there's a lot of competing resources. And I believe this year there was only a total of about $1.8 million and probably 50 to 60 applicants. Everything from mortgage assistance, homeowner assistance, SHIP. That was only $400,000. So those -- it's not going to -- the SHIP is not going to solve the problem. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're going to have to subsidize -- and then just for the members of the public, you're going to have to subsidize that with other -- other -- with TIF, because the SHIP is fairly competitive, and there's a committee that reviews and then recommends to the Board. Because you have here, coordinate with Collier County Community and Human Resource Division for mobile home upgrade and replacement which would -- again, would be part of the SHIP process. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's going to be a very limited amount of money. MR. JOHNSON: And I think we've had multiple conversations with them regarding -- just to get a better Page 39 of 52 March 21,2019 understanding of how they do what they do and as well as their, you know, housing master plan that they've been working on and all of that. And I absolutely agree with you, I think there's some approaches that they use that even if SHIP dollars weren't involved, maybe the CRA could actually follow some of the ways in which the housing folks have done their work, because they've got processes in place, they've got vendors that could help with some of those, you know, how to improve a mobile home or replace it or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's simply an application process. They identiff the SHIP money, and it's an application process, and you compete against everyone else in the county asking for this limited amount of money in SHIP. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. I think we're almost to you, Ned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What page? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Forty-six. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, we're cranking. I'm past 46 akeady, so go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. On Page 5-3-46,.1 1 at the bottom at the left references this road diet concept, and it ties in directly with complete streets. It's my understanding that the proposal of complete streets now is only going to be consider it for Bayshore; is that right? MR. JOHNSON: I mean, that's it -- that's the recommendation for any of these streets at this point is we, specifically in their noncapital recommendations, ask -- basically say that before any decision's made, a study should be done, as you mentioned, to make sure that it is a legitimate approach and it doesn't cause more issues with traffic or whatnot. So it is a recommendation, and it would need to be studied further before any action was taken. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought the focus had narrowed down to Bayshore, but there are other streets that you would be considering and looking at? MR. JOHNSON: Not specifically for lane reductions. Bayshore's the only one that would be reducing. Now, a complete street, though, could just be like what we said on Linwood which is same lanes but we've got room to put in a sidewalk, we've got room for some streetlighting, those types of improvements, which are different than taking a lane. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, I guess -- maybe I'm repeating myself, but just to make this record, you know, for any street that is to be put on a diet or made complete, there should first be a careful study of the reference to impact to residents, to businesses, and automobile traffic as well as public-safety issues, bicyclists and pedestrians, and those are just the ones that I can think of, because you could make the situation considerably worse. I just -- with respect to this lane diet thing, a situation that had evolved in the City of Naples was that there was a city proposal to have a lane diet on 9th Street North, the North Trail, running from the four corners up to the beach hotel golf course, and the residents were totally in opposition to that for a variety of reasons. So it was taken off the table, but then FDOT has come back in, so I'm told, and they may be proposing to do that themselves, oveniding the city. And I don't know whether that could also happen in the county on the East Trail, but I think that would be a very bad situation. MR. JOHNSON: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, do you know of anything of that nature? MR. BOSI: I know the Florida Department of Transportation is moving forward initiating a complete-streets program trying to promote the concept where it can. So in regards to anything specific, I don't know, but I do know that they have initiated, within the past year, a renewed commitment to trying to implement the complete-street policies where applicable in the various jurisdictions throughout. They're out meeting with the municipalities, counties as we speak talking about this initiative and what's going to be coming from it, but I don't have any specifics as to, you know, where it would apply. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess if FDOT takes it over, there's probably nothing we can do about it, but I believe -- Page 40 of 52 March 21,2019 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's their road. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- it would lead to a honible result on either the North Trail or the East ; Trail, in my personal opinion. I tttR. JOHNSON: I was just going to say, if that's okay, as far as DOT's process moving forward -- I don't i *ork for DOT, but I have had conversations with District 1 regarding their progr:rm, which is -- Collier's included in. Ultimately, what they're going to be looking for is what is the -- if the community is coming to them wanting a certain type of treatment, then they've started to develop a process to evaluate their roads in a different way that may allow for some of those changes. So, ultimately, they've got this new process. It's a new way of looking at roads. But they don't -- at least in my discussions with them, they do not want to do something that the community has not put a plan together and said we really would like to do this, so -- at least in my conversations. I can't speak for -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the case of the City of Naples, they are well aware that the city fathers and the residents opposed it vehemently. MR. JOHNSON: I can't speak to that case. Just more generally. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I go, then, to Page 56. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm on Page 56 as well, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The Strategy No. 1 at the top says alternative transportation methods: Golf carts, electric shuttles, other neighborhood electric vehicles, shared and/or automated -- autonomous vehicles, waterbound. I mean, is this realistic in the near term or even in the intermediate term? MR. JOHNSON: Well, I mean, I certainly think that things like the electric carts, the circulator carts, are realistic in the near term. I mean, that's something that's already happening in downtown Naples where you can call them, they come to you, they pick you up, it's free or it's a minimal charge, and it can take you between key places downtown. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So this would be something that would be like CAT? MR. JOHNSON: I wouldn't say it would be like CAT. This is usually a -- and at this point, as far as I know, CAT is not running any of these types of service, but it would be like an on-demand circulator. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it would be offered by the county as opposed to private people buying government carts and electric? MR. JOHNSON: I would say not necessarily. Usually the way it's -- and if you want to go ahead and speak to that. MR. BOSI: I was going to say, normally those are run by private initiatives, and those initiatives, they provide advertising and different things while those people are on those shuttles, and that's how they help fund those initiatives. MR. JOHNSON: But they would be approved through that local government. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have on that page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they would be fully DOT compliant? MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. If they're going to -- they have to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, licensed and all the other requirements. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Down in Objective 3, and this is under Strategy l, improved parking. We talked about that. But reduced design requirements for parking. Just, again, be careful what you ask for; just so you know what you're asking for in parking garages. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bold issue. I guess the going price today per space is somewhere between 15- and $20,000. MR. JOHNSON: Up to 30-, depending on where you're at, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Per space. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okav. Page 4L of 52 March 21,,2019 MR. JOHNSON: And I think, again, this will be -- this may be a code issue, depending on -- it's just something for consideration because of the uniqueness of some of the properties in Bayshore. Maybe you could provide more parking if you didn't have the same landscape requirements in Bayshore as you did elsewhere; things like that that you may want to look atthatyou can get some more spaces out of some of these smaller lots. So that was generally the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Next page -- this is a contentious issue. The transportation concurrency exemption areas, and this is a statement -- exception to meeting transportation concuffency standards. Again, be careful what you ask for. Residents clearly need to understand that when we exempt traffic requirements, they're going to put up with traffic congestion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know how else to say it. I mean, we have traffic concurency. We've implemented checkbook concurrency. We have all these things, and if -- one of the most contentious and hot issues in this county is traffic. And, of course, it's not like the East Coast, I mean, but people here who have been here for a while -- so be careful what you ask for. MR. JOHNSON: Well -- and our reference here was to the existing policy that does exist, and we were just stating that the CRA would be -- in many ways, their strategies reinforce some of the strategies that are in the TCMA now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they are very controversial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very controversial. MR. JOHNSON: I could understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 58, proposed design for narrower travel lanes. I understand clearly what you're asking for and required -- just clearly that when this does take place that the residents clearly understand the impact that this is going to have, and it may reduce the speed on Bayshore, I mean, really. Just a visual thing, but there are other unintended consequences as a result ofit, so... Okay. I'm on Page 59. We already talked about stormwater building design. Okay. Then I'm up to 6l. This is a repeat -- coordinate with jurisdictional government, but this is a repeat of the stormwater master plan. You've talked about it. It's clear. I just need -- again, stress the interface with the county staff as what you're stating here, and, of course, it becomes competitive with all the other funding requirements. That doesn't say that you can tax yourself to solve some of the problems, but that's an issue. Strategy 5, placing utilities, underground, again, another issue. Always -- that's been discussed for years in the county;just incurring the cost and who pays for it. MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely; right. CFIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you have any more? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a couple more. The first of the two is at Page 5.5.1, so I have nothing up to that point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What page was that on then? 5.5 - COMMISSIONER FRYER: 5.5.1. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm breezing through here. Just to understand, under -- on Page 5 point -- or 5-4-5, the note that you are, in this plan, asking specifically for the TIF fund to go out through 2060,42 years, the plan. I don't understand this now. You want to extend it 30 years out to 2048, but you're asking for TIF funding out to 2060? MR. JOHNSON: Let's see. Well, okay, so -- and this would be something that probably needs to be clarified in the language. So the 2060 date is the statutory maximum. That's the sunset date in the statutes now, which is it's a 60-year maximum for the CRA to exist. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: But any given modification can only extend 30 years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Page 42 of 52 March 21,,2019 MR. JOHNSON: So we're asking for the 30-year extension and, ultimately, you could go all the way out to 2060 from the statute's perspective. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So that needs -- I will clariff that a little bit, though. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just make sure you clari$ that then. Thank you. On Page 5-4-7,last bullet there on the page, I already talked about it, but the commercial parking garage on Bayshore. Again, planning the site, identifuing, and identiffing the costs. You say, Ned, you're on 5-4 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm at 5-5-1. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Dash l. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The -- 5-5-1, you -- at the end of this page you intemrpt yourself in mid sentence to insert a table, and the table consists of three pages, and then you pick up -- you pick up on -- finish the sentence on Page 5.5.5. Is that really what you meant to do? MR. JOHNSON: We probably can move that around a little bit and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It seemed like a non-sequitur. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. I wouldn't call that an intentional thing. I think that was just a formatting snafu. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then I do have some substantive questions. I think they're my last ones on 5-5-5. At the top, under 5.5.6, neighborhood impact, multimodal transportation, as of right now there is housing available at lower income levels yet this may be due to lower structural quality based on findings from the background analysis for the redevelopment area plan. As improvements are made in the area, there is a potential risk of property values rising to make housing substantially less affordable. I think this is a point of concern. And let's take, for instance, the mobile home people, I guess, in south Bayshore. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it your sense that -- and I realize that their structures are more precarious and they're more vulnerable to, say, a hurricane, but the quality of life down there, they're not complaining or in terror or in fear, are they? Aren't they -- I drove through there a few days ago, and it seemed to be, I mean, fairly vibrant for what it was. MR. JOHNSON: I would only say that it -- I mean, it varies geatly street to street. I think that, ultimately, what this was trying to say was, we need to be cognizant of the fact that future success by encouraging new private investment, et cetera, will have an impact -- potentially a negative impact upon them because it may increase development pressures, increase property values, et cetera. So from a -- the statutory neighborhood impact discussion is really about the folks who live there now who may be mal-affected by rising propertlz values, new development. Are we putting strategies in place to address them? And the way we do that is through, we've got grants, we talk about possibly helping with replacement housing, those types of things. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm glad that you raise that, because I think it's a real issue. You might consider placing more emphasis on that tradeoff, because you will potentially end up displacing people and making it too expensive for people to continue living where they're currently living, and both of those things, I think, need to be thought about in the planning process. Then my last comment is this one that I've been referencing before. It's at the bottom left of 5-5-1. It says, "With more urban-style development and multimodal improvements, traffic circulation may change. There may be increased congestion on roadways and at major state road intersections in making them safer for non-automobile modes. " Again, I'm glad you raise that. I think that's a very -- it's a very important consideration -- MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that -- I don't believe there's an easy answer to it. And at the very least -- and you've already agreed with me on this, I think. But before we put a complete street in, there needs to Page 43 of 52 March 21,2019 be -- particularly one that reduces the automobile lanes and increases the proximity of pedestrians and bicyclists to motor vehicle -- you've got to really look at it from various different perspectives to be sure that it really is the right thing to do. MR. JOHNSON: And I think that any one of these studies will need to address and educate on the tradeoffs. Ultimately, one of those studies on a potential complete street needs to come through the advisory board and others, and we talk frankly about the tradeoffs. Maybe you're providing parking but maybe at the same time you're increasing some congestion, particularly during season. And those tradeoffs need to be discussed, absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The advisory board is the right place to start with that, because those are the folks who are living down there. I hope we're also going to be part of that process, too. MR. JOHNSON: Well, certainly from any regulatory change you would be. I would leave the rest up to staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or Land Development Code. MR. JOHNSON: Or Land Development Code or, yeah, GMP changes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are all the changes I have. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On -- at the end of Paragraph 5.5.6 on that same page, I would just add words there where you cite water-quality impacts, "can be evaluated through existing" should be "state, federal, and county process," because you have Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. You have water quality certification requirements -- MR. JOHNSON: Management district. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- under the ERP, Section 402. So there are requirements that -- and just -- itjust is not the county. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The state and feds are clearly involved in that. I don't think -- I know in the next section you go in great detail on TIF and graphs. All that is clear. I don't think I have any other questions. I know that's -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Amazing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- amazing, but... MR. JOHNSON: This is my first time in front of the Planning Commission, so you'llhave to tell me if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I took over for Mark today. He always asks all the questions. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody else? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have some conceptual questions, not so much page by page. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: But Chairman Strain opened the meeting pretty much with trying to clariff why we're reviewing this, what our mission is here today, and it was said that we are here to review to ensure GMP consistency. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And so I guess this question really is for staffand for our county attorneys. Is the significance of this document, if approved, moving forward, in your opinion, are we, by approving this, committing ourselves to anything that would not be changeable when these specifics come back to us through GMP amendment or LDC amendments? MR. BOSI: No. This is strictly a support document to reference shategies that could be implemented within the regulatory process at a later date. And it's also utilized -- well, not temporarily, but one of the secondary portions of it is really utilized to support grant applications as well, to frame how the area is treating the redevelopment, how one individual strategy will fit within to a particular grant application and how that supportive information is viewed as a positive or another checkoff towards successfully completing a grant application in the individual reviews when they rank them. Page 44 of 52 March 21,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Evan? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: The specific use of this document significance to the CRA, to the board members that are here moving forward, I mean, I'm -- from the conversation so far and some very well-stated concerns and just issues by fellow commissioners, I'm looking at this -- or my conclusion is that this is really a charter. It's kind of a prioritized roadmap, a menu for your agency board in order to prioritize and decide what is the low-hanging fruit, what do we go after specifically. MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: And in that respect, you know, I'm inclined to say, you developed it, it looks like a great step forward. So I'm always wondering, you know, to what extent do we just let progress take place versus do we need to air sigrificant concerns and, you know, potentially hold up the process. But it is -- it's a charter. It's a roadmap -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- correct? It's not a -- it's a nonbinding document in terms of this board and any future options that we might have. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Complete streets has been discussed a lot today. And just in terms of clarification, complete streets, is it simply a holistic way of addressing street design or potential changes to a street that would take into account lighting and safety and pedestrian and multimodal application, traffic flow, safety overall? Is it a mandate for any kind of a specific outcome for how a street is designed? MR. JOHNSON: It is not necessarily -- I mean, it can be a mandate if your county adopted a mandate to do just a certain type of complete-street design. I think your definition, though, is right on with what it is. It's really about a more holistic way of looking at your public right-of-way, your streets, and how can we do a better job of accommodating multiple users, different types of users. COMMISSIONER FRY: Within that footprint? MR. JOHNSON: Within that footprint. COMMISSIONER FRY: Within that footprint? MR. JOHNSON: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FRY: So in the case of Collier County, we have not -- have we adopted a complete streets as a mandate in our street design? MR. BOSI: We have not adopted a mandate towards where every component of complete streets has to be implemented within to our transportation design plans, but we have adopted a provision that we recognize the concept of complete streets and, where applicable, we will apply them to the specific design plans that eventually will be reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But moving forward, the CRA board would come up with -- focus on which streets to focus on, work with the county, develop those designs, and it may -- Bayshore was the only street that actually had a * even a potential for a reduction of lanes, a diet, so to speak, but that would all still be subjective in the future as to what makes sense for a given road segment? MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. Okay. Funding, I'm curious how with these funds that come in through the TIF, the MSTUs, how exactly is the decision made on how to allocate the funds, what to spend the money on? MS. FORESTER: We have a work plan that we bring forward to the Board usually on an annual basis, and we're leaning towards looking at it in a five-year time frame. So the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CRA, approves the budget every year, and then they also approve -- every time we have to go through procurement at those certain levels, we follow the county standard procurement process. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the recommendations all are the product of the CRA -- Page 45 of 52 March 2t,2019 MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- board? MS. FORESTER: The advisory board reviews our work plan, they make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CRA, who has the ultimate authority to spend the dollars. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, in effect, the neighborhood itself -- I mean, this area itself is really promoting the top-priority changes according to what's important to them at the time -- MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- within the program? Okay. Another funding question. When a road improvement -- now, let's say Bayshore is having changes made to it. You know, we've spoken about how the TIF funds come off the top of the General Fund so that, you know, anything additional above the base from 2000 now goes into the TIF -- this trust fund, let's say a project is done on Bayshore. Normally it would have been done with county funds, General Funds, I would assume. Now you've got CRA funds and you've got county funds. How is that project paid for? Is it a sharing of those funds? MS. FORESTER: The statute does state that if there's anything already in the adopted capital improvement projects that the county is paying for, TIF dollars can't be used to circumvent those already approved capital projects. COMMISSIONER FRY: Cannot or -- MS. FORESTER: Cannot. ln the adopted plan as of today. But in the case of -- let's say Thomasson Drive where we are now working on a major project there, we are adding to above what the county normally did. So we're putting in a roundabout, we're putting in the sidewalks. So all of those are being paid from the MSTU, who is doing that. In the future there may be some additional partnerships with the CRA and the TIF. So we're really providing maybe additional services or in the fact we want to do something before it happens at the county basis. Paving roads; we've got a whole list of roads in the Bayshore area that need to be resurfaced or brought up to county standards. The CRA may choose to say we would like to do that now because we want it done sooner than what the county's rotation system would provide. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Very helptul. We've spoken a lot about the l7-acre parcel. I didn't see details in the plan. I just was curious, what exactly is that property now, and what potential top-priority uses are there for that parcel? MS. FORESTER: Evan did an extra piece when he was doing this on the 17 acres to get public input. We actually did a survey of the community. I think we had over 900 people respond to the survey and what their top priorities were. So we definitely saw sort of a shift from doing a residential-intensive development there to something that was going to provide more open space, the connection to Sugden Park. Some type of performing arts or cultural facility was also identified there. We also saw that they were more interested in what the outcome would be as opposed to the price we receive for that propefty. So right now we are going to be having continued conversation with the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the CRA at our joint workshop on April the 2nd and hopefully have some discussion on what we will do next. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that all undeveloped land currently? MS. FORESTER: Yes, it is all vacant. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. The Haldeman Creek entertainment area, does that encompass -- it's shown on the map, but I would assume that encompasses Celebration Park, 360 Park, and then some areas to the north and south? MS. FORESTER: And the other side of Bayshore. So we have some vacant properties right there by the bridge. So those we know are currently, I think, recently purchased, so there will be some new activity going there. So that Haldeman Creek entertainment district was identified in 2000. So now we're seeing it as coming about, and so we're working strategies to make sure it can be implemented correctly. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's ways to take advantage of the unique nature of having the waterway Page 46 of 52 March 21,2019 going through that area? MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I saw earlier in the -- one of your early slides, rectilinear block design. I wondered -- I'm not quite sure what that is. I wonder if you could clariff. MR. JOHNSON: I said that in one of my sides? Let's see. COMMISSIONER FRY: And if it's not important -- I know it's not critical, but I don't know if that implies some kind of architecture specifically. MR. JOHNSON: No, no. Yeah. What was that? I'm sorry. MR. BOSI: No. It's just -- it's your classic grid, rectangular blocks that form a grid -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER FRY: A grid structure, a geometric -- okay. Thank you. You -- there was mention of character areas, and so I wondered if you could clarifu the importance of -- characterize these different areas. Let's say, like, different kind of neighbors that you want to apply their own individrtalzeal and flavor, but what is the significance of those when it comes about to GMP amendments, LDC items that might come before us, if any? MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think, ultimately, when we identified the character areas, we saw this as - with the exception of Windstar, which is -- we've kind of talked about as a unique place. We saw it as places that could be emphasized in any future LDC or GMP amendments. If you think about to the north in the Triangle, you've got a Shadowlawn district, which is really this residential core, and it has specific land-use pressures and development pressures and issues that would need to be addressed with, and we want to make sure that if you're going to think about updating your code, that maybe we focus, hey, you've got 41, you've got the triangle -- the mini-triangle going on. There's going to be a lot of pressure. There's going to be a lot of transition issues. There may be some specific regulations that you want to put in place in those areas. So that's generally how we address the character areas. Another one would be down on Bayshore just talking about -- something that came up again and again and will need to be addressed in any type of code update would be the fact that, yeah, you don't have a lot of depth. You've got small commercial parcels, and yet you've got this demand now for some restaurant and entertainment and things like that that will have a bit of a parking demand, that may need a little bit more of a footprint, more developments like the brewery and less, you know, tiny, small restaurants over the future. So you may need to address that in how do we allow for further transition or maybe a little bit more depth in certain areas. So that's kind of how we approached the idea of the character areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's not so much a look and feel of that neighborhood. It's adjacent geographic, contingent geographic areas that really have similar characteristics that you want to apply -- MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- a holistic planning approach to each area; is that it? MR. JOHNSON: We basically looked at based on parcellization, based on current uses and said, you know what, this is kind of your -- this is how the character areas kind of pan out. In moving forward, you're going to need to think about how the plan and the code address these specific areas and make sure that you're protecting the things that you want to protect and you're encouraging the thing you want to encourage. COMMISSIONER FRY: There was mention of five-year reviews at some point in your presentation. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Have those been conducted since 2000, or is that a future concept that they will start to be conducted every five years from now on? MS. FORESTER: I don't believe there was much review over the 18 years to actually look at where we were. So that's why we put it into that plan, because we do think it is impoftant so we continuously improve the document. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would agree. I think 20 years is -- a lot of changes happen in 20 years. Five would be much better for a fine-tuning horizon, I think. Page 47 of 52 )f March 21,2019 MR. JOHNSON: And I would just add to that, the nature of your redevelopment plan with two chapters, four and five, related to two different areas. If you think about five years, it's much easier to make smaller edits versus, you know, remove and replace. I think that's going to work a lot better from an operational standpoint. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I might have one more. Let me just check. That's it. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Deborah, go ahead. MS. FORESTER: I was just going to say maybe for clarification for where we are hoping to go now is we heard the comments about the density issue on the mini-triangle as far as consistency with the current Growth Management Plan, and then we heard a number of concerns that you had for clarification for understanding of the impact that the fiscal piece will have, as well as the complete streets. So I'm wondering in your motion today if that would be to have the plan consistent with the two changes that was referenced by Mr. Strain before he left and then a comment sheet that we can bring forward to the Board on your other concerns and comments. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We're just -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I remain -- sorry. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We're just being asked to determine whether this is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And we have had all the comments, and I guess they've made a list of them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I don't feel comfortable being constrained in that way. I don't know about Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I don't know how we can vote on this being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when nothing in the Chapter 4 is consistent with what we went through amending the Immokalee Master Plan. That's my confusion. I'm asking to approve something that is consistent. I guess it would be consistent with the existing Comp Plan. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The lmmokalee Master Plan, which will eventually amend the Comp Plan, you'll have this come back and amend the entire Chapter 4? MS. FORESTER: Yes, or parts of it, whatever it needs to be. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for all intents and purposes, Chapter 4 is consistent because it's consistent with -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's not changed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- with the current plan. MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, am I the only one who is uncomfortable limiting us to conformity with the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I mean, I have issues, but they're all political issues. And the statement to extend the CRA time frame is not part of the GMP, is it? I mean, it's a goal. It's in this plan. So if I say yes to this plan, am I actually consenting to agree that the CRA dates should be changed? MR. KLATZKOW: You are welcome, in part of your motion, to say that we are in disagreement with extending the plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I asked. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My concerns -- if I can be more specific, and Commissioner Fry mentioned, this, the charter or the roadmap, I think, is what this visioning document becomes. And one interpretation of a charter is it's sort of a senior document or a document that you would then use to address the more junior documents. And I'm concerned that something comes back that -- where you would say, well, this was in the vision plan that you approved, and so we're just trying to implement that now with changes to the GMP or the LDC. I know I've spoken a fair amount today about my concerns, and I guess to the extent that anybody wants Page 48 of 52 March 21, 2019 to know about them, they're a matter ofpublic record, but I would rather they be dealt with now and see if we can't come up with a motion that deals with them. And my concerns -- and let me just state them. Mark has his concems that he stated. I'm also worried about the fact that we'll lose hold of this document the way the progression has currently been recommended; that, indeed, the CRA advisory board will get another look at it, which is a good thing, but as far as we're concemed, we're going to be done with it under the current staff recommendation, I believe. And I think it needs - I think it does need to come back to us on some ofthese points. For instance, I think the concept oflaw enforcement has been shortchanged in that consultant's report. The very first speaker made a good -- made some good points about indigence, vagrants, drugs, crime, and the like. And so to me that points up a need to identif and make expenditures in the area oflaw enforcement. So I think there needs to be a little more emphasis, ifnot initial mention plus some emphasis about needs for law enforcement in here. The complete streets and road diet matter, I think we've come to a meeting ofthe minds, at least orally today, but before any street were narrowed or in any way changed that would - in a fashion that would likely bring about more traflic congestion or closer interactivity, automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists, you've got to look at the impact ofthat, and there has to be a study that is specific to the street, not something that's pulled out ofa textbook ofgeneral application like we see with tlrese tralTic impact studies, but something that would say, okay, in the case ofBayshore we've looked at this, the impact to residents is going to be this, the impact to businesses is going to be this, the impact to automobile traffic will be this, and public safety for the bicyclists and pedestrians has been analyzed, and we believe the impact will be this. Also, the soft costs, the nonstructural or noncapital costs, I think that could be - I think you could go back to the drawing board on that and, for instance, throw in some more about law enforcement and also more clearly specifi that before a complete street were authorized, there would be this study and there would be a soft cost associated with that study. And, finally, I agree that the 3O-year extension is too long. CI{AIRMAN HOMIAK: So you want it to come back with changes before you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do, but if - I recognize that if we vote 3-1, it's not going to go forward, and I'm not prepared to do that at this point. If I don't have any other support up here, I've made my record. [f, you know, anybody wants to adopt these points, they can, but -- so my question is, is there any support from my fellow Plaming Commissioners to bring this back? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a statement. My only concern -- well, not my concern, but the issue here is, do we find it consistent? This is not GMP language. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Anything out of this will come back as an amendment to the GMP and subsequent LDC. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to conclude that the plan was developed by the residents; it was recommended and supported by the residents. I would make a motion -- and we'll see where this goes. I'll make a motion that we find it consistent with the GMP subject to the following exception: That the plan not be extended, that it stay as written, and so it will sunset in 2030; is that correct? The CRA would sunset? MS. FORESTER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A 30-year, or is it 2029? MS. FORESTER: It was adopted in 2000, so it would have a 30-year - MR. JOHNSON: I think it's 2030. MS. FORESTER: 2030. It was adopted in 2000, so 30-year time frame, so that would be in 2030. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's too early to make any type of a recommendation to extend it. That can be done five years from now, because there is a significant fiscal impact, and that is a fiscal impact associated with loss of revenue to the General Fund. Paqe 49 of 52 March 2112019 So with the exception of the statement that the Board approve or at least that the goal that says that the 20 1 9 amendment will extend the term of this plan to 2049 as allowed in Section 163 .387 (2)(a) Florida Statute, I do not support that extension, but from regard with the plan, other than the issues that Ned brought up and that has been brought up by other commissioners and myself, I think we've given you clear guidance. I would make a recommendation subject to the statements I just made that we consider it consistent with the Comp Plan with the understanding that any amendments will be coming back certainly as Comp Plan amendments and related to Land Development Code amendments. So that's my -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll second it to move it forward, and then I'd like to make a comment, if I may. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is, staff is -- staff and the consultant are to be commended for working so closely with the CRA advisory board, and that's the main reason why I'm not going to stand in the way of this thing moving forward. And I can support limiting our recommendation to the fact that it is consistent with the GMP, as the statute requires. I also agree with Commissioner Schmitt that now is not a good time to consider extension. That can be a discussion for later. The final thing I will say, though, is, you know, when these -- when these GMPs -- amendments come back and LDC amendments come back and people stand up in front of us and say, well, now, this is part of the visioning process that you approved, I'm going to remember. So that's all. CHAIRMAN HOMTAK: You will. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I had to say. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did we get an official interpretation from our legal team that we do not open ourselves up to that? MR. KLATZKOW: This is an aspirational document. Aspirations change. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would ask, in terms of the time frame, I'm not sure why 30 years was approved in 2000 or why 30 years is now the de facto standard, but what is the -- are there any impacts to limiting it to 2030 as has been suggested here? MR. KLATZKOW: The advantage of increasing a CRA is bonding. So if you have a 30-year lifespan on the CRA, you can put out 3O-year bonds. If your CRA is expiring in five years, now you're into the short-term commercial note market. That's the primary advantage of extending it for 30 years. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm not an expert in the area of those types of bonds, but is that -- how restrictive is that of the success and the capability of it if we shorten the time frame of those bonds? MR. JOHNSON: Well, I mean, as far as specific bonding, if the CRA decided to do that, ultimately it's a -- how much money -- how much revenue will you have to project to pay offthe bond. So it's a timing of if it's a l0-year bond, l5-year bond, which at this point it's a, what, 20, I think, or l5 or whatever. So at that point it's a different -- it's a different ball game. Typically, it really will just depend. I mean, ultimately, you've set in a base year for your TIF collection for your increment collection, and that base year is the 2000. So as property values continue to increase over time, you know, we will have recessions again, things will slow down, hopefully not as crary as it was a few years ago, but there will be ups and downs. But, ultimately, that base year of 2000 provides you a -- the CRA a significant opportunity to bring in TIF money, you know, and that continues to grow through the course as long as the CRA exists. So whether that's 2039 or'49 that -- or 2060 some day, that would be the primary advantage. CILA.IRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I need to amend my motion specifically in regards to the Bayshore/Gateway extension. I have no problem with extending the Immokalee CRA. I clearly understand the need there. So I want to clarifo that I don't automatically -- I don't agree with the automatic extension of the Bayshore/Gateway, so... Page 50 of 52 March 21,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd accept that as the seconder. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I clearly recognize that's a political decision that our commissioners will make, and you certainly can make that petition before the Board. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one more comment, too. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. That is that a very good point was brought up about the bonding cost. And since we're not going to see this again,I hope that when it goes in front of the BCC sitting as the CRA you'll be able to quantifr that and tell them exactly what the cost difference is going to be depending upon how long it is extended, because that could be a driver for the ultimate decision-makers. MS. FORESTER: And at this point in time we're not suggesting that we're going out for a bond, but we will raise that issue as one of the reasons why the extension could possibly benefit the area. Right now the CRA has gone under a commercial loan program in order to get the funds they needed to acquire some of the property previously. COMMISSIONER FRY: I echo Commissioner Fryer's sentiments that, in my opinion, I'd just like to see the right decision made on the time frame and don't feel that we have enough information here to know what that horizon should be. So when you go before the Board of County Commission, hopefully you can state your case and lay out things besides bond costs that might affect a judicious decision on how long that time frame is. But I would support the amended motion also. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would like to commend Terri for hanging in there, because we went 43 minutes past a break. CIIAIRMAN HOMIAK: It must be because of you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you, Terri. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We have no new business. No old business. Public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Motion to adjourn? Second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Allthose in favor? COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're out of here. Page 51 of 52 March 21,2019 ****:l** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 72:43 p.m. COLLIER COLINTY PLANN TNG COMMIS SION ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on { - lB -l 1 , as presented 1'/ or as corrected -. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 52 of 52