Agenda 05/08/2018 Item #9C05/08/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development
Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from a General Commercial District in
the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C -4-GTMUD-
MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit development in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the
Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district for a project
known as the Mini-Triangle MPUD to allow construction of up to, with a mix to be determined by
maximum allowable traffic generation, 377 multi-family dwelling units, 228 hotel suites, 111,000
square feet of commercial uses and 90,000 square feet of general and medical office uses, 150
assisted living units, 60,000 square feet of self-storage and 30,000 square feet of car dealership;
providing for maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near the southern corner of the
intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.35± acres; providing for repeal of conditional use
resolutions; and by providing an effective date. [PL20160003054] (This is a companion to Agenda
Items 9.A and 9.B).
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above referenced petition to render a decision regarding this proposed PUDZ, and ensure
the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the
community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located near the southern corner of the intersection of
Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East in Collier
County, Florida. The petitioner is requesting that the Board consider an application amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from a General Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle
Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit
development in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (MPUD-
GTMUD-MXD) zoning district. The petitioner also seeks to rezone 5.35+/- acres to allow up to up to,
with a mix to be determined by maximum allowable traffic generation, 377 multi -family dwelling units,
228 hotel suites, 111,000 square feet of commercial uses and 90,000 square feet of general and medica l
office uses, 150 assisted living units, 60,000 square feet of self-storage and 30,000 square feet of car
dealership.
It should be noted that a minimum of 105 dwelling units, 37,000 square feet of combined retail,
restaurant, movie theatre and personal services, and 30,000 square feet of general and medical office are
required.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is limiting the project height to 168 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL). The City of Naples Airport Authority (NAA) does not object to a height up to 160 feet
above the established ground elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport (NMA), which according to the
developer’s commitment in the proposed ordinance, equates to 168 feet North American Vertical Datum
of 1988 (NAVD). The project’s maximum actual height will be 162.8 feet, as defined by the County’s
LDC and using the NAVD as the geodetic datum. The actual height is derived from measuring the
9.C
Packet Pg. 181
05/08/2018
vertical distance, starting from the average ground elevations at the centerlines of US 41 and Davis
Boulevard, to the highest point of all buildings, including any appurtenances. The project’s maximum
actual height, as defined by the LDC, will comply (and be less) than the maximum allowed by both the
FAA and the NAA.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as
needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet
the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved
by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit revie w fees. Finally, additional
revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the
value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the
criteria used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Staff identified the
FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed MPUD may not be deemed
consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Consistency with the FLUE of the GMP will be contingent upon
approval of the companion small-scale GMP Amendment [(GMPA) GMPA-PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-
3]. The companion petition is currently seeking to amend the FLUE by establishing the Mini Triangle
Mixed Use Subdistrict in order to allow a high density and intensity Catalyst Project to spur
redevelopment. Please, see Attachment 4 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum for a more detailed analysis
of how staff derived this determination.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2016
and 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element (TE) of the GMP states,
The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with
consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve
any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in
the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in
the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway
segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of
Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating
stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic
impact statement reveals that any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where
9.C
Packet Pg. 182
05/08/2018
it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and
submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts
on all roadways.
Staff reviewed the proposed MPUD on the subject property based on the then a pplicable 2016 AUIR
Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new commercial
development will generate approximately 628 PM peak hour adjusted two-way trips. Staff also evaluated
the traffic impacts for the proposed project based on the adopted 2017 AUIR, which are also included in
the table below.
The proposed development is located within the South 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area
(TCEA), which allows exemptions from concurrency requirements as long as impacts to the
transportation system are mitigated consistent with GMP Policy 5.4. The proposed development is not
requesting this exemption and is not proposing TCEA mitigation measures at this time.
Based on the 2016 and 2017 AUIR’s and applicable TCEA provisions, the adjacent roadway network has
sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for this development within the five-year
planning period. Therefore, the subject development can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the TE of
the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): The petition is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the CCME of the GMP.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this
proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or
inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the companion GMPA as
provided for in GMPA-PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
initially heard petition PUDZ-PL20160003054 on February 15, 2018. Two public speakers came
forward. The public speakers included Katie Cole, who represented Crown Castle International, and
Linda Penniman, a City of Naples Councilmember who came representing herself (and not the City). Ms.
9.C
Packet Pg. 183
05/08/2018
Cole indicated that Crown Castle International is the tenant of the existing wireless communication tower
located on the subject property, and she wanted to express her concerns to the CCPC. After discussing
numerous topics, the agent requested to continue the petition until the March 1, 2018 CCPC meeting.
The CCPC voted 5-0 to continue the petition until March 1.
At the CCPC meeting on March 1, 2018, two public speakers came forward. The first was Chris
Rozansky, Executive Director of the Naples Airport Authority, and the other was Katie Cole. After
discussing many concerns, the CCPC voted to 6-0 to continue the petition until April 5.
At the CCPC meeting on April 5, 2018, representatives from the City of Naples came forward to express
their concerns with the project. These speakers included Linda Penniman, a councilmemb er who again,
indicated that she was only representing herself, Vice Mayor Gary Price, Robin Singer, and Greg
Strakaluse. In addition to the officials from the City of Naples, Katie Cole and Chris Rozansky came
forward to speak at the meeting, to ensure t he proposed PUD Document addresses their interests. After
much discussion and numerous revisions to the PUD Document, the CCPC voted 3-2 to recommend
approval of the petition and its companion items. The CCPC’s stipulations included the following:
1. Prohibit sexually-oriented-businesses.
2. Insert language provided by the County Attorney’s Office to address the restrictive covenants
requested by the Naples Airport Authority.
3. Revise the Naples Airport Authority commitments as requested by the Naples Airport Authority.
4 Add staff’s revised stipulation regarding overhead doors.
5. Add “as shown on the master plan” to clarify the setback measurement from the PUD boundary.
The attached ordinance reflects changes requested by the CCPC at Feb 15 and March 1 meetings and all
the changes and stipulations recommended by the CCPC at the April 5 meeting.
The dissenting votes were cast by Edwin Fryer and Diane Ebert. Commissioner Fryer, who did not have
an issue with the greater density, intensity, and anticipated traffic, felt the project did not strike the proper
balance between a reasonable need on the part of the developer for flexibility and the reasonable
expectations of those in the County for a high -end, first-class development. Commissioner Ebert stated
that the project, as proposed by the applicant, allowed for too much variation and characterized the PUD
language as providing no reliability to produce a project in how it was described to the community.
Commissioner Ebert also had an issue with the proposed height
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Petitioner is requesting a rezone from the General Commercial District
in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C -4-GTMUD-MXD)
Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the
Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District. The burden
falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below.
The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners, should it consider denying the rezone, to
determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be
accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for MPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval
or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
9.C
Packet Pg. 184
05/08/2018
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or
other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such
areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed MPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to ser ve the
development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring
the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with MPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future
land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested MPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
9.C
Packet Pg. 185
05/08/2018
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of
traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance
with existing zoning? (a “core” question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed MPUD rezone on the
availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service
adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented
through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as
amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the MPUD rezone request that the
Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare?
The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney’s Office. This item has
been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval.
9.C
Packet Pg. 186
05/08/2018
(HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC to recommend that the
Board approve PUDZ-PL20160003054. All changes are reflected in the attached Ordinance.
Prepared By: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (PDF)
2. [Linked] Attachment 2 - CCPC Feb 15 2018 (Agenda_Staff Report_and Support Material)
(PDF)
3. [Linked] Attachment 3 - CCPC Feb 15 2018 (Minutes) (PDF)
4. Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (PDF)
5. [Linked] Attachment 5 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Documents) (PDF)
6. [Linked] Attachment 6 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Minutes) (PDF)
7. [Linked] Attachment 7 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Agenda_Addendum & Supplemental Staff
Report_Support Material) (PDF)
8. Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (PDF)
9. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 4896 (PDF)
10. BCC Ad Affidavit (PDF)
9.C
Packet Pg. 187
05/08/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.C
Doc ID: 4896
Item Summary: Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning
atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a
General Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District
Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit development in the Mixed
Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) zoning
district for a project known as the Mini-Triangle MPUD to allow construction of up to, with a mix to be
determined by maximum allowable traffic generation, 377 multi-family dwelling units, 228 hotel suites,
111,000 square feet of commercial uses and 90,000 square feet of general and medical office uses, 150
assisted living units, 60,000 square feet of self-storage and 30,000 square feet of car dealership; providing
for maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near the southern corner of the intersection of Davis
Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 5.35± acres; providing for repeal of conditional use resolutions; and by providing an
effective date. [PL20160003054] (This is a companion to Agenda Items 9.A and 9.B)
Meeting Date: 05/08/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Eric Johnson
02/20/2018 3:15 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
02/20/2018 3:15 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 04/24/2018 4:32 PM
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 04/25/2018 11:33 AM
Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Level 1 Reviewer Completed 04/25/2018 1:53 PM
Growth Management Department James French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 04/25/2018 3:36 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 04/25/2018 5:29 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 04/26/2018 9:14 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 04/26/2018 10:47 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 04/26/2018 2:36 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 04/26/2018 3:51 PM
9.C
Packet Pg. 188
05/08/2018
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/30/2018 12:55 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 05/08/2018 9:00 AM
9.C
Packet Pg. 189
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Page 1 of 3
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., MARCH 1, 2018, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES,
FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A
MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL
MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 1, 2018, and February 7, 2018 *Special CCPC/LDC*
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting:
A. PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida,
specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map
Series by adding the Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict to allow construction of up to
210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of gross floor area
of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial
office uses, all with conversions; providing for maximum height of 168 feet. The subject
property is located near the southern corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard
and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of
5.35 acres; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Page 2 of 3
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for
an effective date. (Companion to PL20160003054 Mini-Triangle MPUD and LDCA-
PL20160003642) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner]
Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting:
B. PL20160003054: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property
from a General Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle
Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Mini-Triangle
MPUD to allow construction of up to 210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up
to 74,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square
feet of gross floor area of commercial office uses, all with conversions; providing for
maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near the southern corner of the
intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.35± acres; providing for
repeal of conditional use resolutions; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to
PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and LDCA-PL20160003642)
[Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner]
Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting:
C. LDCA-PL20160003642: An Ordinance of the Board Of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One,
Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the
Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four – Site
Design and Development Standards, including section 4.02.06 Standards for Development
in Airport Zones, to exempt the Mini-Triangle Subdistrict of the Urban Designation,
Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan from the Standards for
Development in Airport Zones; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five,
Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
(Companion to PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and
PL20160003054 Mini-Triangle MPUD) [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC
Manager]
D. PL20170002684: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida,
granting a parking exemption, to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot zoned
Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-152,
relating to a prior parking exemption. The subject property is located between Rosemary
Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier
County, Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Principal Planner]
E. PL20170002330: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 88-93, the City Gate Commerce Park Planned
Unit Development, to revise the legal description and correct the acreage of the MPUD;
to update the master development plan including designating a Lake/Recreational Area,
adding external access points along the eastern MPUD boundary and adding the Collier
County Sports Complex; to provide conversions to allow additional hotels and motel units
and the development of the Collier County Sports Complex, without increasing the overall
originally approved buildout traffic; to provide deviations for signage, flagpoles, parking
areas, landscape areas and buffers, architectural review standards, native vegetation and
water management; to clarify permitted uses and add development standards for the Sports
Complex, including building heights; to update building heights elsewhere in the MPUD;
to remove outdated commitments; to add exhibits including exhibit A-3 permitted uses by
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Page 3 of 3
SIC codes, Exhibit A-4 cross sections-north buffer, Exhibit A-5 sign deviation exhibit, and
Exhibit A-6 required yard plan; providing for conflict and severability; and providing an
effective date. The subject property consisting of 291.55 acres is located at the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of I-75 and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 35,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner]
F. PL20170002634: A Resolution amending Development Order 88-02, as amended, the
City Gate Commerce Park Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section
One: amendments restoring language from the original Development Order 88-02 and
provide traffic conversions, without increasing the overall buildout traffic; amendment to
regulations pertaining to vegetation and wildlife/wetlands to remove the 2.47 acre wetland
“preserve” requirement; amendment to remove phasing schedule and obsolete
development restrictions; amendment to master development plan; extension of
termination date; and amendment to allow for biennial reporting; Section Two: findings of
fact including revised legal description and correction of acreage; Section Three:
conclusions of law; Section Four: effect of previously issued development order,
transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and providing an effective date.
The subject property consisting of 291.55 acres is located at the northeast quadrant of
the intersection of I-75 and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 35, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal
Planner]
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJORN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
This item has been continued from the
February 15, 2018, CCPC meeting,
You have received the full packet material at the
February 15, 2018, CCPC meeting.
Attached is what was collected at the
February 15th meeting.
PL20160003054: An Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending
Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code, which established the
comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from a
General Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of
the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-
MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known as
the Mini-Triangle MPUD to allow construction of up to 210
residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000
square feet of gross floor area of commercial retail uses
and up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of
commercial office uses, all with conversions; providing for
maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near the
southern corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and
Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.35± acres;
providing for repeal of conditional use resolutions; and by
providing an effective date. (Companion to
PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and
LDCA-PL20160003642) [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP,
Principal Planner]
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Trebhlcock
planning•engineering
Traffic Impact Statement
Gateway Mini Triangle
Planned Unit Development and Growth Management Plan Amendments
Collier County, FL
023/1420/2018;
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Hole Montes, Inc. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
950 Encore Way 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34110
Phone: 239-254-2000 Phone: 239-566-9551
Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz
Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee—$ 500.00
Collier County Transportation Review Fee—Major Study—$1,500.00
e il) Mti I l Cife,
o f3 ,e.G, eh)
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—FebruaryM M 20187
Project Description
The Gateway Mini Triangle development is a+f approvcdproposed Mixed Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard
SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East (US 41 [SR 90]). The project is approximately 5.35 acres in size
and is located in Section 11,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
The project is located within the US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). The
US 41 TCEA is designed to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on
urban sprawl control policies and redevelopment. Proposed development located within the
boundaries of the South U.S. 41 area are exempt from transportation concurrency
requirements so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies enumerated in the Land Development
Code (LDC), as applicable.
Refer to Fig. 1 — Project Location Map, which follows, and Appendix A: Project Master Site
Plan.
Fig. 1—Project Location Map
11INap
Moir ei
At0 1 AuuoR
c
e,ci xipdq C6ur3eY tIW
PROJECT I
4
3
w
4
Consistent with the approved Collier County zoning districts and uses, the existing subject site is
currently zoned General Commercial District (C-4) which provides the opportunity for the most
diverse types of commercial activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment
and recreational attractions.
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 14
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—FebruaryM e'th 2018
Upon approval of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Plan Unit
Development Amendment (PUDA) applications, the project will be developed as a mixed-use
project as shown in Table 1, Proposed Development Program.
The proposed principal uses are illustrated as follows:
Residential—Multi-family—up to 210 dwelling units.
Commercial — up to 152 hotel suites; up to 74,000 square feet of Retail, Restaurant,
Movie Theater, Personal services; up to 60,000 square feet of professional or medical
office use.
Permitted uses based on a conversion matrix —Assisted Living Facility (ALF); Indoor air-
conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage; New Car Dealership; any other principal
use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses.
The units and square footage provided above may be adjusted from the stated units and square
footages as provided in a Land Use Conversion Table—this document is submitted as a separate
item.
The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed
trip generation. For the purposes of this analysis, Medical Office is conservatively used, as it
generates higher traffic volumes than the General Office use.
Table 1
Proposed Development Program
Development Land Use ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Total Size
Code
Residential Multi-Family Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 210du*
Hotel Hotel 310 152 rooms
Retail Shopping Center 820 74,000sf**
Office Medical-Dental Office 720 60,000sf**
Note(s): *du=dwelling units.
sf=square feet.
For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the
Collier County 2021 planning horizon. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County
Transportation Planning staff on November 14, 2016, as illustrated in Appendix B: Initial
Meeting Checklist.
Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41 — northern entrance — right-in/right-
out/directional median left-in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis
Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right-
out/left-in access (proposed dual opposing single left directional median).
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 15
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—FebruarvA4erfi+2018,
Table 6
Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS)—With Project in the Year 2021
Roadway 2021 Peak %Vol. Min LOS Min LOS
CC AUIR 2016 Peak Link,Peak
Roadway Roadway Link Dir,Peak Hr Dir,Peak Hr
Dir,Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded
Link
Link ID
Location Capacity Pro ect
Hr Volume Impact without with
w/Project By Project? Project?Volume Volume
Project Yes/No Yes/No
Added)*
Tamiami
Goodlette Rd.to
Trail East*** N/A
Davis Blvd.
3,600(SB) 119 3.188 3.31% No No
US 41)
Tamiami
Davis Blvd.to
Trail East 91.0 2,900(SB) 72 1,817 2.48% No No
US 41)
Airport Rd.
Davis Blvd. US 41 to Airport
SR 84)
12.0
Rd.
2,700(EB) 142 1.820 5.26% No No
Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report.
2021 Projected Volume=2021 background(refer to Table 4B)+Project Volume Added.
Not a Collier County monitored roadway.
Site Access Turn Lane Analysis
Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41 — northern entrance — right-in/right-
out/directional median left-in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis
Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right-
out/left-in access (proposed dual opposing single left directional median). For more details
refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan.
The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the potential future total external
traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour, as illustrated in Table 2. Based on the trip
generation results, the generated PM peak hour traffic is more intense than the AM peak hour
traffic (both egress and ingress traffic). As such, the PM peak hour traffic is used in the project
access turn lane sizing (PM Pk Hr Enter—351 vph; Exit—412 vph).
For the purposes of this analysis, the adjacent property to the west is included in this report.
This development named Trio Hotel is currently under permitting process and consists of a
12-room resort hotel, 24 Multi-Family dwelling units, 3,145 square feet of office space and
11,798 square feet of quality restaurant space. Site access turning movements associated with
this project have been incorporated in this report as illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement
for Trio Hotel, dated April 15, 2016.
The estimated overall trips at the Mini Triangle site access locations are illustrated in
Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits.
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page l 13
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Bob Mulhere
From: Pam DeSmet[redhead.desmet@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:07 PM
To: Bob Mulhere
Subject:Lots on Goodland Drive
February 13, 2018
Mr. Mulhere,
Regarding the lots owned by Scott Allen on Goodland Drive in Goodland, it is the opinion of the BOD of Calusa
Island Village that Scott Allen be allowed to build on said lots. It would be in keeping with the rest of the
neighborhood to have a residence there. In regard to lot next to his owned by Calusa Island Village POA, there
is no intention of building a dwelling on that lot. That lot was retained for the purpose of having a buffer and
possibly recreational activities on that lot. There well be no residence built there.
Respectfully.
Pam DeSmet, President of Calusa Island Village
1
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
PUD Allows Following SIC Code Uses
SIC Search Results
5311 Department Stores—Neiman Marcus
5331 Variety Stores
5399 Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores
SIC Search Results—All good uses—think organic...
5411 Grocery Stores
5421 Meat and Fish(Seafood)Markets, Including Freezer Provisioners
5431 Fruit and Vegetable Markets
5441 Candy,Nut,and Confectionery Stores
5451 Dairy Products Stores
5461 Retail Bakeries
5499 Miscellaneous Food Stores
SIC Search Results—Lulu Lemon,Nike,Maas Hoffman,etc.
5611 Men's and Boys'Clothing and Accessory Stores
5621 Women's Clothing Stores
5632 Women's Accessory and Specialty Stores
5641 Children's and Infants'Wear Stores
5651 Family Clothing Stores
5661 Shoe Stores
5699 Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores
SIC Search Results—First 3 re: Interior Designer related or Antique Store
5712 Furniture Stores
5713 Floor Covering Stores
5714 Drapery, Curtain,and Upholstery Stores
5719 Miscellaneous home furnishings Stores
5722 Household Appliance Stores
5731 Radio,Television,and Consumer Electronics Stores_probably No
5734 Computer and Computer Software Stores..—Apple or Microsoft
5735 Record and Prerecorded Tape Stores-Vintage Vinyl
5736 Musical Instrument Stores_.-ok use
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
SIC Search Results
5912 Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores
5921 Liquor Stores—affiliated with grocery
5932 Used Merchandise Stores Antiques&Collectables yes—used merchandise no
5941 Sporting Goods Stores and Bicycle Shops
5942 Book Stores-OK
5943 Stationery Stores-OK
5944 Jewelry Stores-OK
5945 Hobby,Toy,and Game Shops
5946 Camera and Photographic Supply Stores
5947 Gift,Novelty,and Souvenir Shops
5948 Luggage and Leather Goods Stores-OK
5949 Sewing, Needlework,and Piece Goods Stores Tailor OK
5961 Catalog and Mail-Order Houses NO
5962 Automatic Merchandising Machine Operators NO
5963 Direct Selling Establishments NO
5983 Fuel Oil Dealers NO
5984 Liquefied Petroleum Gas(Bottled Gas)Dealers NO
5989 Fuel Dealers, Not Elsewhere Classified NO
5992 Florists OK
5993 Tobacco Stores and Stands NO
5994 News Dealers and Newsstands OK
5995 Optical Goods Stores OK
5999 Miscellaneous Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified
SIC Search Results
7933 Bowling Centers OK New Boutique Bowling—F&B Centric
7991 Physical Fitness Facilities OK
7999 Amusement and Recreation Services,Not Elsewhere Classified OK
PUD is limited to yoga instruction,-intioof-slhoutingr-ange,and bicycle rental;
SIC Search Results
6111 Federal and Federally-Sponsored Credit Agencies NO
6141 Personal Credit Institutions N_O
6153 Short-Term Business Credit Institutions,Except Agricultural NO
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
6159 Miscellaneous business Credit Institutions NO, but banks and Investment Mgrs.
OK
6162 Mortgage Bankers and Loan Correspondents
6163 Loan Brokers
SIC Search Results
6211 Security Brokers,Dealers, and Flotation Companies
6221 Commodity Contracts Brokers and Dealers
6231 Security and Commodity Exchanges
6282 Investment Advice
6289 Services Allied With the Exchange of Securities or Commodities, Not Elsewhere
Classified
SIC Search Results
6311 Life Insurance
6321 Accident and Health Insurance
6324 Hospital and Medical Service Plans
6331 Fire, Marine,and Casualty Insurance
6351 Surety Insurance
6361 Title Insurance
6371 Pension, Health,and Welfare Funds
6399 Insurance Carriers, Not Elsewhere Classified
SIC Search Results
6411 Insurance Agents, Brokers,and Service
7212 Garment Pressing,and Agents for Laundries and Drycleaners
7231 Beauty Shops
7241 Barber Shops
SIC Search Results
7311 Advertising Agencies
7371 Computer Programming Services
7373 Computer Systems Design
7374 Computer Programming
7375 Information Retrieval Services
SIC Search Results
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
8011 Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine
8021 Offices and Clinics of Dentists
8031 Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Osteopathy
8041 Offices and Clinics of Chiropractors
8042 Offices and Clinics of Optometrists
8043 Offices and Clinics of Podiatrists
8049 Offices and Clinics of Health Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified
8051 Skilled Nursing Care Facilities No unless part of CCRC(Moorings Park)
8052 Intermediate Care Facilities
8059 Nursing and Personal Care Facilities, Not Elsewhere Classified
8062 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
8063 Psychiatric Hospitals
8069 Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric
8071 Medical Laboratories
8072 Dental Laboratories
8082 Home Health Care Services
8092 Kidney Dialysis Centers NO
SIC Search Results
8111 Legal Services
SIC Search Results
8611 Business Associations
8621 Professional Membership Organizations
8631 Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations
8641 Civic,Social,and Fraternal Associations
8651 Political Organizations
8661 Religious Organizations
8699 Membership Organizations, Not Elsewhere Classified
8699 Membership Organizations,Not Elsewhere Classified
Membership organizations, not elsewhere classified.
Art councils
Athletic associations-regulatory only
Automobile owners'_associations and clubs
Farm bureaus NO
Farm granges_NO
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Historical clubs,other than professional
Humane societies,animal NO
Poetry associations
Reading rooms,religious materials NO
SIC Search Results
8711 Engineering Services
8712 Architectural Services
8713 Surveying Services
8721 Accounting,Auditing,and Bookkeeping Services
8731 Commercial Physical and Biological Research
8732 Commercial Economic,Sociological,and Educational Research
8733 Noncommercial Research Organizations
8734 Testing Laboratories
8741 Management Services
8742 Management Consulting Services
8743 Public Relations Services
8744 Facilities Support Management Services. Formatted:Font:Pattern:clear
8748 Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere Classified Establishments primarily
engaged in furnishing business consulting services,not elsewhere classified,on a
contract or fee basis.
Agricultural consulting
City planners,except professional engineering
Economic consulting
Educational consulting,except management
Industrial development planning service,commercial
Radio consultants
Systems engineering consulting,except professional engineering or
Test development and evaluation service,educational or personnel
Testing services,educational or personnel
Traffic consultants
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
eJ-- - q&
TITLE
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by
amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from a General
Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle
Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to a Mixed
Use Planned Unit development in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway
Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district
for a project known as the Mini-Triangle MPUD to allow construction of up
to 210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of
gross floor area of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square feet of
gross floor area of commercial office uses, all with conversions; providing for
maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near ear the southern corner
of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
5.35± acres; providing for repeal of conditional use resolutions; and by
providing an effective date. [PL20160003054]
16-CPS-01629/1389521/1] 132
Mini Triangle/PUDZ-PL20160003054
1/19/18
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP if the companion
GMPA petition were to be approved.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Open space:Areas that are not occupied by buildings, impervious parking areas, streets,
driveways or loading areas and which may be equipped or developed with amenities designed to
encourage the use and enjoyment of the space either privately or by the general public. Examples
of open space include: areas of preserved indigenous native vegetation; areas replanted with
vegetation after construction; lawns, landscaped areas and greenways; outdoor recreational
facilities; and plazas, atriums, courtyards and other similar public spaces.
Open space, common:Those areas within or related to a development, not in individually
owned lots, designed and intended to be accessible to, and for the common use or enjoyment of,
the residents of the development, or the general public.
Open space, usable:Active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, tennis
courts, golf courses, beach frontage, waterways, lakes, lagoons, floodplains, nature trails and other
similar open spaces. Usable open space areas shall also include those portions of areas set aside
for preservation of native vegetation, required yards (setbacks) and landscaped areas, which are
accessible to and usable by residents of an individual lot, the development, or the general public.
Open water area beyond the perimeter of the site, street rights-of-way, driveways, off-street
parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space.
Destination resort hotel:A transient lodging facility (i.e. - less than six months occupancy) where
patrons generally stay for several days in order to utilize, enjoy, or otherwise participate in certain
amenities, natural or man-made, including but not limited to: (i) direct access to the Gulf of Mexico,
ii) on-site golf course and golf-related facilities, (iii) health spa and/or fitness center, (iv) other
recreational amenities and on-site services, including full dining services and cocktail lounge,
entertainment rooms for video and movies, and concierge services. Except that, for destination resort
hotels fronting on the Gulf of Mexico, an on-site golf course is not required.In all cases, a destination
resort hotel must include full dining services and a cocktail lounge, and not less than 25 percent of
the gross floor area must be devoted to common usage and support service areas, such as but not
limited to fitness room, health spa, media room, meeting rooms, dining and lounge facilities, and
spaces in support of hotel functions.
Hotel (also motel) : A building or group of buildings offering transient lodging accommodations
normally on a daily rate to the general public, with or without accessory uses, such as restaurants,
meeting rooms, or recreational facilities.
Timeshare unit:A dwelling unit in which timeshare estates have been created.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
EXHIBIT A
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
VISION,PURPOSE AND INTENT
V>bttt\- 1-v/
The Mini Triangle MPUD is intended to be a catalyst project spurring further redevelopment in the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate a vibrant mixed use development and viable
market demand, as provided for and incentivized in the GTMUD-MXD Overlay for the "Mini-Triangle"
area, the MPUD provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in Site Design and Development
Standards. For the purposes of this MPUD mixed use shall include, at a minimum, residential multi-
family development along with a mix of commercial uses, including retail, restaurant and office uses, and
may include other commercial uses such as a hotel with ancillary commercial uses, "multiplex" movie
theater, bowling center, physical fitness facilities, personal services, and other commercial uses identified
in this MPUD. The development form shall be two or more multi-story structures with commercial uses
generally located on the ground floor (and subsequent floors for some commercial uses such as office,
restaurants or multiplex theater by way of example and not limitation), with floors of supporting parking,
residential, hotel, retail, office or other approved uses. The MPUD establishes minimums and maximums
for residential density and commercial intensity to ensure a viable mixed use development.
LIST OF PERMITTED USES
TRACT MXU—MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
A. PERMITTED USES:
The PUD shall be developed with a mixture of residential and commercial uses. No building or
structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land used, in whole or in part,
within the Mini-Triangle MPUD, for other than the following:
I. Principal Uses
a. Residential Uses (see Table 3 for minimum number of required multi-family units):
1. 210 Multi-family residential dwelling units are permitted by right.
b. Commercial Uses (see Table 3 for minimum required square footage):
1. 152 hotel suites (or other "transient lodging" uses including but not limited to
interval ownership or vacation rental suites) are peiinitted by right (7011). The
term transient lodging includes hotels and interval ownership or vacation rental
suites. Any such transient lodging shall include the following operational
characteristics and/or limitations: lodging accommodations normally on a daily
or weekly rate to the general public or to interval owners and provisions for
Page 1 of 29
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-14-2018.docx
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
check in and housekeeping services as well as other amenities such as dining
facilities, meeting rooms, or recreational facilities.
2. 74,000 square feet of the following uses are permitted by right:
a. Retail (5311-5399; 5411- 5499; 5611-5699; 5712-5736; 5912; 5921; 5941-
5948; 5992 — 5999; 7933, 7991, 7999 limited to yoga instruction, indoor
shooting range, and bicycle rental; 8412); and,
b. Restaurant, eating and drinking establishments (5812 and 5813), excluding
bottle clubs; and,
c. Movie Theatre (multiplex) (7832); and,
d. Personal and financial services (6111-6163; 6211-6289; 6311-6399; 6411,
7212, 7231, 7241).
3.60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right
7311; 7371; 7373-7375; 8011- 8092, 8111; 8611-8699; 8711-8748).
c. The following uses are permitted through the utilization of the Land Use Conversion
Matrix set forth in Section B. of this MPUD.
1. Assisted Living Facility (ALF) (8082), limited to 150 units and a FAR of 0.45.
2. Indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage (4225), limited to
60,000 square feet. Access to the indoor air-Conditioned passenger vehicle and
self storage must be internal to the site and not visible from an arterial or collector
road.
3. New car dealership, limited to an interior showroom/display, plus delivery and
warranty bays (5511), limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet. Access to the
warranty bays or repair bays associated with the car dealership must be internal to
the site and not visible from an arterial or collector road.
4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the
Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC.
II. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and
structures permitted by right in this MPUD, including,but not limited to:
a. Residential Uses:
1. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents of the PUD, such as
swimming pools, fitness centers, dining facilities, and recreation/amenity buildings.
2. Customary accessory uses and structures to residential units, including parking
structures, gazebos, fountains,trellises, signage, and similar structures.
b. Commercial Uses:
Page 2 of 29
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-14-2018.docx
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
1. Caretaker's residences one (1)per building, not to exceed three (3), subject to LDC
Section 5.03.05.
2. Temporary display of merchandise during business hours provided it does not
adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health or safety as
determined by the County. Merchandise storage and display is prohibited within
front yards adjacent to Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail (US 41), but allowed
within internal public areas and within side and rear yards.
3. Customary accessory uses and structures to commercial development, including
parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, and similar structures.
B. BY RIGHT DENSITY AND INTENSITY, LAND USE CONVERSION MATRIX,
AND DENSITY AND INTENSITY LIMITATIONS:
Table l: By Right Density and Intensity per Section A.I
Multi-Family Hotel Retail General Office Assisted Living Self-Storage
dwelling rooms) (square feet) (square feet) dwelling units) square feet)
units)
210 152 74,000 60,000 0 0
Table2: Land Use Conversion Matrix
TO
FROM Familytil
Hotelulti-
tZl
General Self-Retai1131
Officet4l Assist d Storaget) New CartsquareLivingDealershipdwelling (rooms)square square
units)
feet)
feet) (dwelling units)
feet) (
square feet)
Multi-
Familyt 1
1.0 0.8 70 260 2.3 2,010 190
dwelling
units)
Hotel(2)
1.1 1.0 90 300 2.7 2,300 220
rooms)
Retail(3)
1,000 12.6 11.0 1,000 3,380 30 25,460 2,520
square feet)
General
1,
000l4)
3.7 3.2 290 1,000 8.8 7,520 740
1,000
square feet)
Note(s): ill Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,Land Use Code(LUC)230—
Residential Condominium/Townhouse.
2)ITE,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,LUC 310—Hotel.
3)ITE,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,LUC 820—Shopping Center.
4)ITE,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,LUC 710—General Office Building.
5)ITE,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,LUC 254—Assisted Living based on one bed per dwelling unit.
6) ITE,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,LUC 151—Mini-Warehouse.
7)ITE,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,LUC 841—Automobile Sales.
Page 3 of 29
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-14-2018.docx
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Table 3: Density and Intensity Limitations
Density and Intensity Limitations
Multi-Family
Self-
New Car
dwelling
Hotel Retail and General Office Assisted Living Storage
Dealership
units)
rooms) square feet) dwelling units) (square
feet) (
square feet)
Minimum 50 N/A 30,000 combined N/A N/A N/A
Maximum 400 200 200 000 combined
150(FAR of
60,000 30,000
0.45)
The "by right" density and intensity identified in Section A.I. may be increased and the uses
identified in Section A.I. paragraph c. may be permitted through utilization of the Land Use
Conversion Matrix, subject to the following limitations:
i. A minimum of 50 100 multi-family residential units shall be developed;
ii. A maximum of 400 multi-family residential units may be developed;
iii. A maximum of 200 hotel units may be developed;
iv. A minimum of any combination of 30,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office, and
personal services shall be developed;
v. A maximum of 200,000 square feet of any combination of retail, restaurant, office,
personal services and movie theater uses shall be developed;
vi. A maximum of 150 rooms ALF units may be developed;
vii. A maximum of 60,000 square feet of Indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-
storage (4225)may be developed;
viii. A maximum of 30,000 square feet of new car dealership (5511), may be developed;
ix. In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation exceed 875 two-way PM peak
hour unadjusted trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates
in effect at the time of application for the SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.
x. No building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last undeveloped
MXU Tract (of the three MXU Tracts) depicted on Exhibit C, Master Plan, unless a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for the minimum 50 multi-family dwelling
units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development or the minimum 50 multi-
family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development is included in
the requested building permit.
C. TRACT GO: GREEN/OPEN SPACE
Green/Open Space areas are not fixed on the MPUD Master Plan. They will vary in location
throughout the site, and will be located at the time of SDP approval. A minimum of 15 percent of
the overall MPUD area shall be provided in usable Green/Open Space. Green/Open Space areas
may include: surface and rooftop landscaped and hardscape areas, all outdoor public spaces and
common areas, including pedestrian ways, sidewalks, greens, patios, terraces, and the like, and
pedestrian ways, sidewalks and landscape areas installed and maintained by the developer
whether within the adjacent public rights-of-way or within private easements. Structures
intended to facilitate public use and gathering are permitted within Green/Open Space areas.
Examples include, but are not limited to: gazebos, fountains, trellises, planters, benches,
Page 4 of 29
H.\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-14-2018.docx
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
landscape structures, outdoor art including statues, food-trucks, mobile kiosks, signage, and
outdoor dining facilities.
Page 5 of 29
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-14-2018.docx
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
EXHIBIT B
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The table below sets forth the development standards for residential and commercial land uses
within Mini-Triangle MPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified
in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision
plat.
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MIN.LOT AREA 20,000 s.f.
MIN.LOT WIDTH 100 feet as measured by frontage on a public right-of-way or internal driveway.
MIN.FLOOR AREA 500 s.f for commercial structures and 700 s.f.500 s.f for residential dwelling units,
except that up to 20%of residential dwelling units may be between 699 and 500 s.f.Hotel
suites/rooms and ALF units,are not subject to a minimum floor area requirement.
MINIMUM YARDS
ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC 20 feet
STREET
ALL OTHER PERIMETER 0 or 5 feet
BUFFERS
MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN 40 feet
STRUCTURES
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT 160 feet NGVD
NOT TO EXCEED(ZONED)
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT 168 feet NGVD
NOT TO EXCEED(ACTUAL)
FAA-HEIGHT LIMIT Building Height shall not exceed168 feet above mean sea level(MSL).
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC S.P.S.
STREET
ALL OTHER PERIMETER S.P.S
BUFFERS
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT S.P.S
NOT TO EXCEED(ZONED)
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT S.P.S
NOT TO EXCEED(ACTUAL)
S.P.S.=Same as Principal Structures
BH=Building Height
B. Parking:
1. Off-Street: Parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.02.16 - Design
Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area,
Section F., Table 1 Parking Space Requirements in the BMUD and GTMUD. For uses
not specifically listed in Table 1, parking shall be provided as required in the LDC
except as otherwise provided for in Exhibit E.
2. Other: Within or along internal private driveways, parallel or angled parking may be
provided.
Page 6 of 29
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-14-2018.docx
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Trebilcock
planning•engineering
Traffic Impact Statement
Gateway Mini Triangle
Planned Unit Development and Growth Management Plan Amendments
Collier County, FL
02 /1424/20187
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Hole Montes, Inc. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
950 Encore Way 1205 Piper Boulevard,Suite 202
Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34110
Phone: 239-254-2000 Phone: 239-566-9551
Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz
Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee—$ 500.00
Collier County Transportation Review Fee—Major Study—$1,500.00
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—FebruarvA9erfh 2018.7
Project Description
The Gateway Mini Triangle development is as edproposed Mixed Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard
SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East (US 41 [SR 90]). The project is approximately 5.35 acres in size
and is located in Section 11,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
The project is located within the US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). The
US 41 TCEA is designed to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on
urban sprawl control policies and redevelopment. Proposed development located within the
boundaries of the South U.S. 41 area are exempt from transportation concurrency
requirements so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies enumerated in the Land Development
Code (LDC), as applicable.
Refer to Fig. 1 — Project Location Map, which follows, and Appendix A: Project Master Site
Plan.
Fig. 1—Project Location Map
N
n n,a
PROJECT
k'Go g
Consistent with the approved Collier County zoning districts and uses, the existing subject site is
currently zoned General Commercial District (C-4) which provides the opportunity for the most
diverse types of commercial activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment
and recreational attractions.
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 14
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—FebruarvM4eFeh 20187
Upon approval of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Plan Unit
Development R:1€44dment (PUDA) applications, the project will be developed as a mixed-use
project as shown in Table 1, Proposed Development Program.
The proposed principal uses are illustrated as follows:
Residential—Multi-family—up to 210 dwelling units.
Commercial — up to 152 hotel suites; up to 74,000 square feet of Retail, Restaurant,
Movie Theater, Personal services; up to 60,000 square feet of professional or medical
office use.
Permitted uses based on a conversion matrix —Assisted Living Facility (ALF); Indoor air-
conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage; New Car Dealership; any other principal
use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses.
The units and square footage provided above may be adjusted from the stated units and square
footages as provided in a Land Use Conversion Table—this document is submitted as a separate
item.
The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed
trip generation. For the purposes of this analysis, Medical Office is conservatively used, as it
generates higher traffic volumes than the General Office use.
Table 1
Proposed Development Program
Development Land Use ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Total Size
Code
Residential Multi-Family Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 210du*
Hotel Hotel 310 152 rooms
Retail Shopping Center 820 74,000sf**
Office Medical-Dental Office 720 60,000sf**
Note(s): *du=dwelling units.
sf=square feet.
For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the
Collier County 2021 planning horizon. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County
Transportation Planning staff on November 14, 2016, as illustrated in Appendix B: Initial
Meeting Checklist.
Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41 — northern entrance— right-in/right-
out/directional median left-in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis
Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right-
out/left-in access (proposed dual opposing single left directional median).
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 15
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
4--+N
E W p
o o.
C
1t'y
Y
III ` L x'iF
Ilmol, CI- O
4
Q
E
4A c •N
ea
r = CU
3
o Q
c
0 ca
E
ro co GS)
CZ v I-
O
z
ajl 0_
oo
W
CI_
D CU
a) N
C
C CL
co
a.9.C.4Packet Pg. 249Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
N
Co
I-
a
W
o'
N
N O
s..
c1 3
C o
z
U
C N 03
a z
co E a --o
E—o co o
N ec
0
co
L
CC U W OO4-
Q O O
L LL U
N N O4-1 t o 4-'
U N
U 0 QtID C U Q
F5 ' ' c 'X • 0
a 1— H m w a cn V9.C.4Packet Pg. 250Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
3 et
0 N 0
a 20 0
OfllO
4{J
N 0 0
C iii. L s o
Q) n
E
Q w
is
a) d
O O 0 o
03 s
0 i RI
4)
LO
O.
0—N
Q C 0
h Q
O a)
L C U
a M F°
0 0
I 0 il c E c J
vc
otoQ,
t-Qc` 4E'
v a. o
v
C zCDQ
U
4-
CD
L
F—
a) i,
aa+9.C.4Packet Pg. 251Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
7114-' to N CO Q1 dNr-i to 0 inI- OO l NL0 = CO N a toXLt4in4Lnmxma)a
2
a
C) N LIT, e-i CO
isa•`
P M tf1 N4.0W
C
E
CQ
o o
WAli
QW
W coCI •V
A a W = W a.°
ih-
i ,,
t0
u)
rts
a.
I C CU 2
N c
L L
CL O) CO CO t!')
Co v vN
C CEW N N N
Q O
4
U nil
C)
Co Ct0
I-
Q. E N N M N
i
H O O M 01 ,•-iL4CDvCD9.C.4Packet Pg. 252Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
Y EnCa0a= T ® O
a mv
v 7.. :,,,,, .....
E
c
to
W/ CQoC
a 0_ m
0 Z a2i
ZS 2 O m 0 2 m o
Ci I- f= Y , m f—
CO i oma z o
LES .
O Cl. = co
a 0
a
a
0
L V
I— c
I ca
V
NC)
N 0
L
a oh
Qv4O.,c,,...,,,..._
CDL
Fig
c>1-3z LL!
I.
z ,.,
C° 0
W
J _ U
0u) W
0
a_-
Z9.C.4Packet Pg. 253Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
a-+
N
a co aJ v co
E
a)
co n L
I3 3 O
CO o
X O e i e-i
U cn N +.00.
CU d- L
U .
N a) C a
cn N cn -a) CO
a1 D 'Y a)co N
C I a C p —,
co N + p Q cn
O
c)L >LJJ
U
N OA p
O
C C +-'QQcm ' o co > -' N V) U v
VI p 01 cv H w v
O i i O C O
to a a' 0 -t o C •3
a) E m C co 'n - +'Cl.)Co
OCU
U U
X p .
co Ea) O' Z 3 C
0
CD LU>,
U •a-'CB CU C C O
U
Ci.)
3 tri- N 3 O — -O
C of e-1 a) 0 O +,,e•1 O
N
Cr co v
co a d.O E
Li/
3 N Cm coMO CC N U +
U .N co G ko u') 0 C _ D -p +-I
Lu a C
C CD
o
C
U o , 3 a) N v
O1-
C E p co V U N =Q cn >a a)
a v o
co 3 o m C
L a o O
C p I co s 3 a 1 -- v) " '
co C , 4 \ '_ 4-
m
C 3 a1 o '>cv cn
co C
co U 0 1 a O + .> C -0 O 0
vpi O .O
C N 0
OC tn O0 cv a-' co }' C O E 'n
C a1 a'
i.;
a' 4 a) 0 0-C
O U v U i 3 N 3 C O +,O E a)
O
C cn ip7,
Ln .o +4 I v N o a
O vco4iNQLLiO OL V = 4-1 O +.+ +
r U
0N (B a1
UO a .a vi 4- -C c m40 a a - o a' a) a
4-1 CV) C O C
N
CO p N aA
CO •> c O CO 4 "t)N C I—U L
U 4--' L. U C U aJ
Y 7, 00 ovaJoaC
co C x
a m a co w m co cn O a in U U
CO
IL —J -9.C.4Packet Pg. 254Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
antNa 1VioU3Iniv100 z
7, H
Z
7 Z
0
4
z
C
C?) 't,‘'''-'.. * •,,. 5I ,f„(,:, •
A. AfgatIVS#4,
iiiirAirik,e-.-•-Al***4-'-*';'.
fi. _,11.!1"-42,1k;j=--'45445ZADS4'-.= -i-..:!".r=":', l'''-,.. - 0.40,-Ilittt,'',..",#.""tt--...•41.'gft41";i01-1Mil-':'",N -z-;,:le.. -L=7;;',7*;"-L'skik''','"*.."--A-"'', '' ' 1-•,,,,,*-
4,-,i,-ii:/zw11,07,..., -,.04k./„,g'sg-f.44,-,74":00*,fg-,1- 0..•'' ,L)4-..-,I., 4V,'-5,.,,,;`, .-,.:.•:.,iret,:•,..1,4,..t 3,11P, 4Zi '''...-r,gIT"i'''.f,,,-''''',''''.''''•0';,,'''''''', '''///111 Wt=k-41xotiko. .; ,LJ- -: c:;.,=;,. •:,::::.4-1...1:4;:i:,:.,. ;:•.'5;,',,ia N.:. ,,, Xktit=4,0 ,,i;,,;',;:i',.4-'Zik'q;', ..,''in.4: a a a a''-1. ' 2,4_,.. '- -.----.. -'''' . w - cc ct ,-„„..,,,,,, , ,
L,1 ,,,,,,,,„:,..,..,.. f--.,,, ,_. ,,,.._:--_,._:__,. .5`1,•.'-'" ' ' - ' -, ,- , , ---, `,'• 1
t. i_...-!,!4i:--- -,, ,,r..,w .., j--'1-'-'-1' *.„„.„ --'*,„ '---'2--.,,, _-:;,!,,!_,-;',-,:,
s7.-. ; ,
t,:.:,'' -- -e.-k-: '.
1,, ../-.:-.:-i-,,-4•: • '4zt) ''.*4 w 4"..,i' s_,',,:',/ ,;,-,
cot.Stp 1.'
cn o
5r->. 7-- Pc ..:"'.
4„ *L. • ___„„m.„,-: . - --i.'"? .iti, 4;' ' --,.--',-, -.,-..-,°-.-1,-..,EIMMIIIIIMmionnwillit ,,EntaMM--..IIIII,..N;,...IMI.I..'.:-. ,,.... - ..
o-..
t...... ,,-
tf. ' ..i-'-,''---',
e',
t
f)
r,,,,,,
A.- r;!,-,--,,,t,.,„s:.„,!..,-1 ,.,:„„a,
4-:"-'7'7"--L1-
t-=, ,-
7 /9.C.4Packet Pg. 255Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
an"an ivy agwwoa
u V
1
J
s
y J 1.10
z
C
1
1 CW
o
N 7...
4"-..
g
W CKI—
j r l
c/1 o f`7.' I
4
I
ca
W
v) b 7 f0
f
1
Q m }
r
w
z 0
off~- Z
ti 1--
r z
z - 0
z F-
z CO
CO
z w
N - 1- 0
f. 0J.y F
CC-T _ _
J-
M-• 9.C.4Packet Pg. 256Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
173Vcc--1 c Va) 1- L' Ov) 4_, OOa
Oo 0 cm
I ec
No
OO
Q
O E yUo
c N 0 O9 46 2 wO
u1 0 W I V) .....
U a) v 4—
V)v O
O C CU O
2 ..(2 2 . *E- .
u_
c I 2 c)
ca.))
a) •-(L2 a_ (>
3-
Q cn +i .OCI 1 o_
U O C U 73
t•17:75 O CA Q
al O
a-' Q 2
CO Q "O V C N a) N E C
O5C0N O
O — U I-- ,0 4A
CD +., N a) O 5 a) :a)
X +-+ F • +''
ESD W _ IL D( f6 -G .-9.C.4Packet Pg. 257Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle
re _
co
r--
00
N
C9
r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Z
z NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER
ORDINANCE(S)
Q Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on February 15, 2018,commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government
1- Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL.
A The purpose of the hearing is to consider:
0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
t FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
ro MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAPANDMAPSERIESBYADDINGTHEMINI-TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
uit CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 210 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS,152 HOTEL SUITES,UP TO 74,000
Z SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND UP TO 60,000 SQUARE
ul FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES,ALL WITH CONVERSIONS;PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ONTHESOUTHERNCORNEROFTHEINTERSECTIONOFDAVISBOULEVARDANDTAMIAMITRAIL
c,( EAST IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,CONSISTING OF 535 ACRES;AND
Z FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3]
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THEAPPROPRIATEZONINGATLASMAPORMAPSBYCHANGINGTHEZONINGCLASSIFICATION
OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT INTHEMIXEDUSESUBDISTRICTOFTHEGATEWAYTRIANGLEMIXEDUSEDISTRICTOVERLAYC-4-GTMUD-MXD)ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THEMIXEDUSESUBDISTRICTOFTHEGATEWAYTRIANGLEMIXEDUSEDISTRICTOVERLAY(MPUD-GTMUD-MXD)ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD TOALLOWCONSTRUCTIONOFUPTO210RESIDENTIALDWELLINGUNITS,152 HOTEL SUITES,UP TO 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND UPTO60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES,ALL WITHCONVERSIONS;PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET,ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 535*ACRES;PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTIONS;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20160003054]
Z
ia
4a ,J PROJECT
CO
w CO LOCATION o
N 1- O fiw 0
N —, , I Z
iF
S DAVIS BLVD i1lloa
r14 a
RZ cc
0
tI i
w+e
f
m
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S)will be madeavailableforinspectionattheGMDZoningDivision,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore,the materials will be
made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401 Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertainingtothedocumentsshouldbedirectedtotheGMDZoningDivision, Comprehensive Planning Section. WrittencommentsfiledwiththeClerktotheBoard's Office prior to February 15,2018,will be read and considered at the
public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to anymatterconsideredatsuchmeetingorhearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,youareentitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County FacilitiesManagementDivision,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at
least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board
of County Commissioners Office.
Mark P.Strain,Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
ND 1895229
January 26,2018
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment 4 - CCPC Mar 01 2018 (Agenda_Additional Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
DC7 CD fl)3 = COz<
rr-
CCD , CD ca Drm. CEWO =GP.LILDzzanv \ MMEZo2U' m zzZzmMco))UO O P z0mz
oc0
I-I-I wm = 0omOzwvDmmcWc_Ti r m --I-> O -o z cnmODEL- mo0D73Kz C.0Z m Z 0 =1 W oIZO073 . -D-Imp gyc2. p =oc mSoW smoc7nIOO -n co to n1o03rnm ._ o y0m CrCDmo3OawnrtOmA1;;'m - -ipO D _crcnzoDm oz73 Nk n'o ow rn
Zoog
I}m - nI00C/) w O nO > 0mo - Z -0 HDmDD -<
cet
m -D m z _ -- CD 1
r u D SND
m m O 0 >D
Cn CI) >
iZr-
M o * p (13o
XI m o W
m
I mG)
Ci) E5 - N
I- _
m
m
m =
1- mm Z xD
m z I"p 'G -W g
73 m mX IN
C'7
m
E5 rn
G) _>3-
m G)
D
73 O E
z .
I
m 2
9.C.8Packet Pg. 259Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr
C1 mDa = CQOO.
tom/)
v CDmmvOm =. 2)Luao5• DJrmr_ _I O w0comI =mco --I cn DOm( C7
zz
Z0Ecn0 -Io) o z1OcOr- mz 0iv a1mm = o n..._ " S171ozwvZmmc -n r 0 'm --I D C'-O 'O -1 .-. zcnMOnD73 - z g nCQzoC > oc00TajWO0 pr- n mar_ m OD 7073DPI*.m mr cmnz1xiJuOzzmCcOo v,M OT -O nDm ( VI IjCi)O W ZO0Or , OmyC500VtOnCnCn0-11'1 O - Z -mop
Co
To 0r— z-
I D Ocmn
0 D m
z--
i & > il
m -x.--- el
1-11 O ):„
D om D z
m?
rmo * oo 4. oiL7Dm m m -m<
m z C/) G0 C5
G) Cn C73 -I
G)CmO m
J
D pz r = D 1 A-7:
o _ = m na
x = m 7
I m
ET) C) Im
D
X oG)
z .
m
mz
9.C.8Packet Pg. 260Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05
D n CD S11 Da3COzGON , eD, ' Orm" cDcon = aIWGOS• cu QnDozc- SUAl1- m r- =-i O = CDD55x0mcocz - mrnCDw -I nz 1 znz (7) mIp_ n c\` OMcn0zil20CIONz = G) w !, \`\ \ 0 D o m =_w • -'Tf r 0 r17 -I D Ot :::_ti7000c'a ca o >
cam_,,
o mZ -- m Z0 = 0 ' iiz0CDmm tD1G) D X00 v
MM•
2 _1 --1 g Q.D oo -r1 COoX Cn 0 iUr• mm X 73 ZiDDD 1111rnI-Dm 2 rh73ONoCZzOo Cm = -.o712ooCc' movm1:2-OropzmDL-) Vm
rm-
z E 0DOz s.n -n M 73 0 0OoW --1-ioo ~i o0 V? oohc73
MM o0-
1 8 zLBzpmCDecDrz om
I m m z -3
CDS
11 Dm Icn = :1
m m O a- ›.--1mO
C m0 cn • m
m o = 0 0
0. m O
W
Dm m m cci
CnZ-
I mo I U1D11
r m m m 73 D
m 0z I'- r-
oo ---I =
W
m = = 0
m m mu
m
C) m rN
o > 73o
D
77 OG)
0z
mz
9.C.8Packet Pg. 261Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr
33CD EDmDCD33fDCOCD '' an CDOoCOv5. p !IT 0.n CO i. SU033r- o ° U-v 13mr0aomMmc.)
00
z -i v (-7) Do (-14 itcnMUDZMupOOm -I C 0a --I O0 m 0 O " m 00 --I cn0DJ S 4>mm m
0DJ
zzIm k---O m _ zD300C m -< zr- 03 r0 (dern0r\) DZzoz -_,. COCDzOC --I z v,
LJ
rn O IT may oI00Cnm -I > P C c QCD _ 0 =<_I m o' cn s moI- 30m Imz 7 MIMImon -G Owom ;,:z0 CDOm33Omnao0g3unK0p0OrOO002Ommmzaao '0r1m Cn n• ...c m =Im nO co Z mz NI00nCn > rom0 ° D o >
m z 0
Cn r -z-
I D 0o33m'I m m 0 N ='"
r > D - z 0
v
m zm O omm
rnmp w m w
o v oz -uID0
m m cn -I
Z-
1 m 0 Cl) m D 00
C7 = n > a 0 fiI- mm Z I) orr-
0z r Or d
70 0 › zmm
Cm 2 O
m zU'
w C') -<
z 2
0 >
F
xl W le.
v
9.C.8Packet Pg. 262Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018
33 Zn0) CD3>Z0 3 =csarmmCOcoa3 = Dnzcco ` D3vmomn -<IMINIIrm r O
mCD
o c z - m o -• . 3cn -I -4 z0z (n m -' z • ZMUjz0zmOmzO0om30Novr- o m WODZ0) ' 333OcO --IO0KM r4m -- DormOoD 1%Z zom Z0 .. , ' COi0Do .C.1 -I p 0 , no C.-.i M (D m U) m 0 cr. . ..0 a, > JJ U eco _ O > 0 - cn o EUmcozml lomz 3O m Ozzm2cn33m - cpITI
m0
C7 m o o 1r" mo OzCID 5. OM ,- z Cooz 131 ,n m ij 1 01vmm ° NC nmnoK0 '--1p 0 N
m oo Dc
0
3:1 6
z5 zrnzm
C1
cz O c
A\'
c!! r --1 D --i o m O
F
1 m o m m K -moi ci- 0
D om D o >
fn cn m
13
v
m O
rri'
00
Zi mG) m 0 -
r mm Z m =
n oz r" *
33 g > -G z 0,
r<
m 2 --1 -mn
3:1M mpa
Ci) C7 n m
z 2 mz
0 D D
33 ---I 0
oz
z '
m
9.C.8Packet Pg. 263Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018
33 Za) CUmnnZr- a) m 2 COCr- - y cC2 CD0FFCDa)co C W85.Er 0.Zr,c vrm m 0ay.a D -- < o o CDrT mz m 3C z r7 cnnz yO mz p zm z1- -o - O coI0, m -I z
oN
zrn0Z = en— W NCJzoOm -- m z Jm00co0 )>DOC5 > M7JkZZzmZo A010DC -I0CI _D a o mm m ' o CO ,- 0COmTOo aW0oWociio =F- 0 0 S )aim 33 ; n 0moRz-' ?' -< jOCDO333:4 zzm1C0C -
i0r`'
33 -lo com -nO n ' mo oI- cn00 Ozoo0' Z3. 0ZBooz410IM..me m '; 0N
O DJ cc, z00c n
O r-
1 O fj
O mC700
m o0 3> 0cj Z
v uqnd s
0) r- --I -I O m O
rn u 177 2 -moi CDam -1 u C
n mm O pn Er
u) a mr-
o * v
11 m0=
v p
c3,
z-
1 rn z Cl)m0 G
O (/) c-75 -._:4
rrn O O m =
M -
vm
Z DJy
33 o > -‹ =I
1- c0 W
G m 2 = 0a) m m ,
U, 0 nm
z 2 mzO > D3 n
off)
z
m 2
9.C.8Packet Pg. 264Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018
q c
Coie-r County l
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: CONTINUED TO APRIL 5, 2018
SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ-PL20160003054 MINI-TRIANGLE
Companion Item: GMPA-PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3
BACKGROUND:
The applicant submitted the Mini-Triangle PUDZ application in December of 2016. After staff review,
the petition was forwarded to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) with a
recommendation of approval, contingent upon satisfying three conditions of approval. At their
February 15, 2018 meeting, numerous topics were discussed, and the CCPC voted to continue the
petition until the next meeting. The CCPC voted to continue the item to March 1, 2018.
At the March 1,2018 hearing,staff provided the CCPC with a printed version of the relevant documents
collected at the February 15,2018 hearing(see previous packet). At the hearing,the applicant provided
a different version of the PUD Document. Numerous topics were discussed and the CCPC had
additional suggestions for the applicant including but not limited to establishing clear minimum
residential densities and commercial intensities for the project, and ensuring the project that is built
looks like the buildings illustrated in the color renderings in Exhibit C of the PUD Document. The
CCPC voted 6-0 to continue the item to April 5, 2018 meeting with the expectation that the applicant
would update the PUD Document in accordance with their suggestions.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES:
Exhibit A of the PUD Document: Below are the changes to Exhibit A compared to the version
contained in the packet for the CCPC hearing on March 1, 2018.
1. Removed the maximum building square footage for each use listed under A.I Principal
Uses. By doing this, Exhibit A.I will now simply list each proposed principal use and
omit a minimum or maximum threshold.
2. Reworded A.I.b.1. Hotels and transient lodging(7011).
3. Reworded A.I.b.2. to include the following limitation o5912:)'excluding freestanding
liquor stores but allowing a free standing retail wine store. )
PUDZ-PL20160003054 X)
March 28, 2018 Page 1 of 13
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9C
unit.) and 3O,444°sgp#rtree le'et of commercial space. Also. 11o1,2 •`x ::tiler--'ethlc 3 of f #aibit-p
ipuktcs thep)llott'ing::
ASO building permit 3t'" - on the-last undeveloped.LV:'
Tract't threet%LIL Tt, ctsi depicti4-ott4x--ltibit C, ,tlastcr Plat:. un/s:; a cct-tif ic`ate of
dcupo v-[itis-lets -ilial[fiir the mini art;it fa y! 30,14
ittifet dct•elopinen,'-car the mi-ilitnttm-5224 irt; unit. ail,[
3 :-14: J-squ fee--r;eeon erial-de=el pmet:t is inc[tulcd in the regue- . ' i7
No building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last of the three MXU
Tracts depicted on Exhibit C Master Plan, unless: (1) construction has begun on a
building or buildings that satisfy the minimum required multifamily units and commercial
squarefootae identified under Table 1., above: or(2)certificates of occupancy have been
issued for these minimum required amounts: or (3) these minimum required amounts will
be accomplished by the construction of the buildings)described in the requested building
permitfor the last MTU Tract, in which case no certificate of occupancy will be issuedfor
any portion of the building until the shell of the entire building has been completed.
The petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on
the health, safety and welfare of the community." Likewise, the petitioner has demonstrated the
deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations"in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h. As such,Zoning
staff supports this request and recommends APPROVAL of this deviation.
Proposed Deviation #6 (Landscape)
Deviation from Section 4.02.16.2.a.,iii., which requires a minimum 10 foot wide Type D buffer
meeting the design standards of section 4.06.02.C.4, to allow the buffer to be reduced to a
minimum of 6 feet in width where the buffer abuts a right turn deceleration lane."
Petitioner's Justification: The applicant provided a lengthy justification,which has been provided
as an attachment to this staff report. Please see Attachment 2—Landscape Deviation.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning Staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation,
finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that
the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is"justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations."
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office reviewed this supplemental staff report on March 27, 2018.
PUDZ-PL20160003054
March 28, 2018 Page 11
off
13
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
JohnsonEric
RE: Mini Triangle PUDZ
Apr 4, 2018 at 4:04:03 PM
Bob Mulhere
AshtonHeidi
Bob,
The below commitments should be listed under a new heading, #7 Miscellaneous in Exhibit F.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: Bob Mulhere [ .iitp:E3ohN_1l;Ihere@hmeng.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:20 PM
To:JohnsonEric<Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: RE: Mini Triangle PUDZ
Ok. I am working to address NAA comments'as well
Bob Mulhere, FAICP
Vice President, Planning Services
HOLE MONTES
HOLE MONTES
239-254-2000
Direct: 239-254-2026
Cell: 239-825-9373
From:JohnsonEric[_1aiito:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov
Sent:Tuesday,April 03,2018 3:23 PM
To:Bob Mulhere
Cc:AshtonHeidi;DeselemKay
Subject:Mini Triangle PUDZ
Bob,
I ultimately defer to Heidi,but I think we'll need the below inserted into the developer commitments:
2 Pursuant to Section 125 022(5) F S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way
create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does
not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain
requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions
that result in a violation of state or federal law
3 All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
Respectfully,
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Eric Johnson,AICP, CFM
Principal Planner-Zoning Division
2800 Horseshoe Drive North,Naples Florida 34104
Phone:239.252.2931
Fax:239.252.6503
Note:Email Address Has Changed Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.org
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.lyiCollierZoning
Co r County
ter`
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
4#, CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH• NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104-3568
ADMINISTRATION(239) 643-0733/FAx 643-4084
OPERATIONS 643-0404/FAX 6434791,E-4A434791,E-MAIL administe tionC flynaples.caiu
March 26, 2018
Mr. Jerry Starkey
Chief Executive Officer
Real Estate Partners International, LLC
1415 Panther lane
Naples, FL 34109
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
Re: Mini-Triangle MPUD
Dear Mr. Starkey and Honorable Commissioners:
The Naples Airport Authority (NAA) is an interested party in the above petition and Land
Development Code (LDC) Amendment proposal by Real Estate Partners International, LLC, its
successors or assigns (Developer). I am writing as the Executive Director of the NAA on behalf
of the NM Board of Commissioners. The NAA requests that this letter be presented to the Collier
County Planning Commission (CCPC) before the CCPC begins the hearing on this matter
scheduled for April 5, 2018.
Following the CCPC meeting of March 1, 2018, the NM met with County staff and the Developer
and came to agreement on the following LDC Amendment language:
Development of the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban Designation,
Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan that comports with height
requirements of Ordinance 2017- is exempted from the maximum allowable
horizontal zone height of 150 feet from the established elevation of the Naples Airport,
as established in LDC Sections 4.02.06.E. and 4.02.06.F. Buildings are allowed up to
160 feet in height from the established elevation of the Naples Airport. Development
within the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict shall comply with the conditions set forth
in the Federal Aviation Administration letters of "Determination Of No Hazard To Air
Navigation", dated January 17, 2017, or any subsequent letters or extensions thereof."
As previously stated, all other provisions of LDC Section 4.02.06 should still apply to the project.
Additionally, the NAA will not object to the Mini-Triangle MPUD ("MPUD"), the permitting or
construction of any buildings within the MPUD, or permitting and operation of any temporary
cranes required for construction and/or maintenance of any buildings within the MPUD, so longasthefollowingDeveloperCommitmentsareincorporatedintotheMini-Triangle MPUD
Ordinance:
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Prinfe,on Aecycseo Paper'OW
The BM 11Hk Aisped ihe emotiey6 Pc Ll/016
frrtS q Skip
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Mr. Jerry Starkey and Collier County Planning Commission
March 26, 2018
Page 2
1. The Developer shall record the Naples Municipal Airport Agreement and Declaration of
Height Restrictions and Covenants (Declaration) in the form attached hereto that
stipulates:
a. The maximum height of any building or other structure (including all rooftop
appurtenances such as communication towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access
doors, recreational facilities and equipment) shall not exceed 160 feet above the
established elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport; and
b. Developer shall provide in any and all declarations of condominium, sales contracts,
leases and similar instruments encumbering, selling or transferring any interests in the
project the following disclosure:
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. THE NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IS
LOCATED LESS THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE
CONDOMINIUM][PROPERTY][PREMISES], IN CLOSE PROXIMITY THERETO.
PURCHASER][OWNERS][TENANT] CAN EXPECT ALL OF THE USUAL AND
COMMON NOISES AND DISTURBANCES CREATED BY, AND INCIDENT TO,
THE OPERATION OF AN AIRPORT."
The Declaration shall be recorded immediately after the deed conveying title to the
Developer and prior to any mortgage or other encumbrance;
2. The Developer shall comply with all stipulations of each FAA Determination of No Hazard
to Air Navigation related to this project; and
3. Any crane used for construction of the project shall first receive a FAA determination of no
hazard. The Developer shall adhere to all conditions of any temporary crane stipulated
by the FAA and coordinate with the NAA throughout construction.
The NAA acknowledges that notwithstanding the height restriction in paragraphs 1.a. above, any
temporary crane associated with the construction or maintenance of buildings in the MPUD and
which are subjected to paragraph 3 above, are likely to exceed the height limitation in 1.a. and
the NAA hereby affirms that such is not objectionable, so long as approved by the FAA as
provided in paragraph 3 above.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ck, 94n
Christopher A. Rozansky
Executive Director
Enclosure
cc: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Bill Owens, Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, NAA Counsel
NAA Board of Commissioners
623242.1
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Prepared without opinion of title by:
William L.Owens,Esq.
Bond,Schoeneck&King,PLLC
4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 250
Naples,FL 34103
239)659-3800
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AGREEMENT AND
DECLARATION OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
This Naples Municipal Airport Agreement and Declaration Of Height Restrictions And
Covenants (this "Declaration") is made as of the day of 2018 ("Effective
Date"), by REAL ESTATE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompanywhoseaddressis1415PantherLane,Naples, Florida 34019, and its successors, successors-in-
title and assigns (collectively "Declarant"), and the CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida whose address is 160 Aviation Drive North, Naples, Florida
34104, and its successors and assigns(collectively"Grantee").
RECITALS
A. Declarant is the fee simple owner of certain real property located in the County of
Collier, Florida, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a
part hereof(the"Property").
B. The Property lies in close proximity to Naples Municipal Airport located in the City of
Naples,Florida(the"Naples Municipal Airport").
C. Declarant acknowledges that although the Property is located outside the approach and
noise zones, it is subject to and affected by noise,vibrations,fumes, vapors,exhaust, dust,deposits,odors
and any and all other effects and nuisances that may be incident to or caused by the operation of aircraft
over or in the vicinity of the Property or by aircraft landing at, taking off from or operating around or on
Naples Municipal Airport.
D. Declarant desires to develop the Property and Grantee has agreed to not object to or
oppose such development so long as Declarant agrees to impose certain covenants, equitable servitudes,
restrictions and requirements on the Property to promote safety and provide awareness of the proximity of
the Naples Municipal Airport.
E. The parties enter into this Declaration for the purposes set forth above.
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of premises and the forgoing recitals and the sum of Ten
Dollars($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged,the Grantee hereby agrees that it will not object to the (i) development of the Property or
ii) permitting, construction or maintenance of buildings and improvements to be constructed anddevelopedontheProperty, including temporary cranes required for such construction, so long as such
development, buildings, improvements and temporary cranes comply with the restrictions and covenants
set forth in this Declaration, all required governmental approvals and conditions thereof and conditions of
any Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Letter of Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation
issued in conjunction with the construction or use of temporary cranes for the buildings that are legally
applicable to the Property, in consideration for which Declarant, for itself and its successors, successors-
in-title and assigns, hereby voluntarily submits declares, agrees and subjects the Property, together with
all improvements from time to time erected or to be installed thereon, to all of the covenants, equitable
servitudes,restrictions and requirements contained in this Declaration:
Page 1 of 4
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
TERMS
1. Recitals. All of the Recitals set forth herein are hereby adopted and accepted and by this
reference made a part of this Declaration.
2. Submission Statement. All of the Property shall be owned, held, improved, transferred,
sold,conveyed,leased, licensed,mortgaged,used,repaired and maintained subject to all of the covenants,
equitable servitudes, restrictions and requirements of this Declaration which covenants, equitable
servitudes,restrictions and requirements shall run with the title to the Property. This Declaration shall be
binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in any portion of the Property and their
successors,successors-in-title and assigns.
3. Height Restriction. No building, permanent structure or other improvement, including
Rooftop Appurtenances, shall be constructed, installed,affixed or otherwise placed on the Property which
is or will be erected to a height of greater than one hundred sixty (160) feet above the established
elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport. As used herein,Rooftop Appurtenances means appurtenances
commonly affixed to or placed on the roof of a building, structure or other improvement such as
communication towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors, equipment, trees, shrubbery and
vegetation (collectively "Rooftop Appurtenances"). Temporary cranes required for construction and/or
maintenance of buildings on the Property that comply with all required governmental approvals and
conditions thereof and conditions of any FAA Letter of Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation
issued in conjunction with such construction and/or maintenance are not subject to the forgoing height
restriction.
4. Disclosure Requirements. Declarant covenants and agrees that a disclosure substantially
similar to the following shall be included in and made part of any and all declarations of condominium,
sales contracts, leases and similar instruments encumbering, selling or transferring any interests in the
Property or any portion thereof:
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. THE NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
IS LOCATED LESS THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE
CONDOMINIUM][PROPERTY][PREMISES], IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
THERETO. [PURCHASER][OWNERS][TENANT] CAN EXPECT ALL OF
THE USUAL AND COMMON NOISES AND DISTURBANCES CREATED
BY,AND INCIDENT TO,THE OPERATION OF AN AIRPORT."
5. Running with Property. All of the covenants, equitable servitudes, restrictions and
requirements set forth in this Declaration shall be binding on and burden Declarant, Declarant's
successors, successors-in-title and assigns and any subsequent owner of all or part of any interest in the
Property. This Declaration shall attach to and run with the Property and shall be forever binding upon
Declarant and all successors-in-title to all or any portion of the Property. All of the covenants, equitable
servitudes, restrictions and requirements set forth in this Declaration shall be enforceable by Grantee
against Declarant and any future owners of the Property or any part thereof or interest therein, including,
but not limited to,any tenant, licensee,occupant or invitee of or on the Property or any portion thereof.
6. Certification. Within fifteen (15) days of receiving a certificate of occupancy for any
building, structure or other improvement, including Rooftop Appurtenances, constructed, installed,
affixed or otherwise placed on the Property, Declarant and any future owners of the Property or any part
thereof or interest therein shall provide Grantee with written certification from an architect, engineer or
surveyor licensed in the State of Florida that the as-built height of such building, structure or other
improvement, including Rooftop Appurtenances, is in full compliance with all of the covenants,equitable
servitudes,restrictions and requirements contained in this Declaration.
Page 2 of 4
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
7. No Waiver. No waiver by Grantee at any time of any covenants, equitable servitudes,
restrictions and requirements set forth in this Declaration shall be deemed or taken as a waiver at any time
thereafter of the same or any other covenants, equitable servitudes,restrictions and requirements or of the
strict and prompt performance thereof. No waiver shall be valid against Grantee unless reduced to
writing and executed by Grantee.
8. Default and Remedies. If Declarant fails to comply with or violates any of the covenants,
equitable servitudes, restrictions and requirements set forth in this Declaration, then Grantee shall be
entitled to exercise any and all rights or remedies available at law or in equity or under the express terms
of this Declaration, including injunctive relief as provided herein. All rights and remedies of Grantee
shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another. The exercise of any one or more rights and
remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available rights and remedies.
No delay or omission to exercise any rights and remedies accruing upon any failure to comply with or
violation of any of the covenants, equitable servitudes, restrictions and requirements set forth in this
Declaration shall impair those rights and remedies or shall be construed to be waiver thereof,but any such
rights and remedies may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed necessary.
9. Injunctive Relief. Declarant acknowledges and agrees that damages as a result of a
failure to comply with or violation of any of the covenants, equitable servitudes, restrictions and
requirements set forth in this Declaration are not readily ascertainable,that money damages or other legal
relief will not adequately compensate Grantee for any such failure or violation, and, in addition to any
entitlement to monetary damages, that Grantee is entitled to injunctive relief compelling the specific
performance of all of the covenants, equitable servitudes, restrictions and requirements set forth in this
Declaration. Declarant further acknowledges and agrees that failure to comply with or violation of any of
the covenants, equitable servitudes, restrictions and requirements set forth in this Declaration would
constitute irreparable harm to Grantee, and Declarant hereby waives any defenses to the grant of a
temporary injunction or restraining order related to any such failure or violation based on the adequacy of
legal remedies.
10. Severability. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Declaration
shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality
or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Declaration, and this Declaration shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
11. Recording and Modification. Declarant shall, at its sole cost, record this Declaration in
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. This Declaration may only be modified, amended,
released or terminated by a written instrument executed by Grantee and Declarant or Declarant's
successors, successors-in-title and assigns to the fee simple title to the Property or any portion thereof,
and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant and Grantee have made, executed and delivered this
Declaration as of the Effective Date.
DECLARANT:
REAL ESTATE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
Witness#1 Name:
By:
Printed Name:
Printed Title:
Witness #2 Name:
Page 3 of 4
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
GRANTEE:
CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Witness#1 Name:
By:
Printed Name:
Printed Title: Chairperson
Witness #2 Name:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was sworn to, subscribed and acknowledged before me this day
of 2018 by as of REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company on behalf of the company.
He or she is personally known to me or has produced his as identification.
Notary Public
Printed Name of Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Seal]
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was sworn to, subscribed and acknowledged before me this day
of 2018 by as Chairperson of CITY OF NAPLES
AIRPORT AUTHORITY. He or she is personally known to me or has produced his
as identification.
Notary Public
Printed Name of Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Seal]
Page 4 of 4
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Exhibit A
623244.1
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
19. In the new document, C. Tract GO: Green/Open Space was updated to also include the
property owners' association as an entity who is responsible for the installation (and
maintenance) of any improvements and/or landscaping within this tract.
Exhibit B of the PUD Document: Below are the changes to Exhibit B compared to the version
contained in the packet for the CCPC hearing on March 1, 2018:
1.With respect to setbacks adjacent to a public street in the table listed in A. Residential &
Commercial Development Standards,the new document stipulates that the 20-foot setback
will be measured from the MPUD property line,whereas the old document did not provide
such specificity.
2.With respect to perimeter buffers not adjacent to a public street in the table listed in A.
Residential& Commercial Development Standards, the zero-foot setback was eliminated,
so that a five-foot setback will always be required. Also,the title was changed to substitute
buffer" for"yard."
3.With respect to building height in the table listed in A. Residential & Commercial
Development Standards,the reference to NGVD was removed, as was the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) height limit. In addition, the requested maximum actual building
height has been changed to reflect 162.8 feet. A note has been added to the table stipulating
the following:
FAA Letters of No Hazard Limit building height to 168 feet above mean sea level
AMSL), (See Exhibit C Master Plan Sheet 4 of4). The Maximum Zoned and Actual
Heights are measured as defined in the LDC and are more restrictive than the FAA
Maximum Height.
Exhibit C of the PUD Document: Below are the changes to the Master Plan in Exhibit C compared
to the version contained in the packet for the CCPC hearing on February 15 44, 2018.
1.On the master plan (i.e., sheet 1), added labels along the MPUD's south boundary along
US 41 that correctly correlate to the requested deviations.
2.Each deviation listed in the Schedule of Deviations (i.e., sheet 3) are capitalized whereas
the previous version was sentence-case.
3. Inserted a requirement to the Schedule of Deviations (i.e., sheet 3), specifically Deviation
5 that Royal Palm trees will be no shorter than 20 feet at the time of installation.
4. Added a second landscaping deviation to the Schedule of Deviations (i.e., sheet 3), which
staff supports(see Landscape Deviation#6 in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff
report).
P
PUDZ-PL20160003054
March 28, 2018 Page 4 of 13
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
5. Added Maximum Building Height Diagrams (i.e., sheets 4 and 5)illustrating the proposed
maximum actual and zoned heights (that are recognized by the County), as well as the
height allowed by the Naples Airport Authority(NAA) and the FAA.
Exhibit E of the PUD Document: Below is the change to Exhibit E compared to the version
contained in the packet for the CCPC hearing on February 15 4-4, 2018.
1. Added a second landscaping deviation to the List of Deviations from LDC, which staff
supports (see Landscape Deviation#6 in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff
report).
Exhibit F of the PUD Document: Below are the changes to Exhibit E compared to the version
contained in the packet for the CCPC hearing on February 15, 2018.
1.Changed the standard of measurement from a maximum total daily trip generation of 875
two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips to a maximum Net New Trip generation of 628
two-way PM peak hour adjusted trips.
2.Inserted developer commitments to the NAA.
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS): Several changes have been made to the TIS since the CCPC
hearings on February 15, 2018 and March 1, 2018.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
This rezone petition may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
Growth Management Plan. However, this petition may be deemed consistent contingent upon the
adoption of the companion GMPA-PL20160003084/GMPA- /CPSS-2016-3 and if the conditions of
approval listed in the Recommendation section on page 10 of this staff report are made.
Transportation Element:
In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for
consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2016 and 2017
Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element (TE) of the GMP states,
The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity ofpermissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment
PU DZ-PL20160003054
March 28,2018 Page 5 of 13
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
From: Bob Mulhere obMulherelmeng.com
Subject: See revised language below
Date: Apr 4, 2018 at 11:29:00 AM
To: Jerry Starkey js@reptrs.com Patrick Neale
pnea e patrickneale.com; Chris Rozansky
lozansklynaples.com
Chris and Pat:
Please see the revised language below. I have also attached Declaration Exhibit"G". I will clean up
the exhibit labeling after Thursday hearing.
i\)aP
DID man
We should be good to go, yes?
a5`n
yc lyS
6. NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY (NAA) ger 'k9S'W` ,e%`
e/0.,
aPP
a. The Developer shall record a restrictive covenan .- - '." . — : - : 'in
4
Egna-)in the public records of Collier County, that stipulates:
i. The maximum height of any building or other structure (including0
rooftop appurtenances) to 160 feet above the established elevation of the
l(
pv.
Naples Airport, which is a total height of 168 NAVD. The restrictive; ow ` 1)
covenant shall be recorded at the time of conveying the title of the ik
property from the County to the Developer, and prior to any mortgage or
other encumbrance.
ii. The Developer shall provide in any and all declarations of
condominium, sales contracts, leases and similar instruments
encumbering, selling or transferring any interests in the project, the
following disclosure:
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. THE NAPLES MUNICPAL
AIRPORT IS LOCATED LESS THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE
CONDOMINIUM] [PROPERTY] [PREMISES], IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY THERETO. PURCHASERS][OWNERS]
TENANTS] CAN EXPECT ALL OF THE USUAL AND
COMMON NOISES AND DISTURBANCES CREATED BY, AND
INCIDENT TO, THE OPERATION OF AN AIRPORT."
iii. The Developer shall comply with all stipulations of each FAA
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued on January 17,
2017, or as may be extended, reissued or subsequently issued.
iv. Any crane used for construction and/or maintenance shall first receive
a FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation and the applicant
shall adhere to any stipulations contained within any such FAA
Determination of No Hazard.
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
Bob Mulhere, FAICP
Vice President, Planning Services
HOLE MONTES
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
Office: 239.254.2000
Direct: 239.254.2026
Fax: 239.254.2099
Cell: 239-825-9373
Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966
Hole Montes,Inc.intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable;however,due to the complex issues concerning electronic
data transfers and data translators,Hole Montes,Inc.cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers.Hole Montes,Inc.cannot
and does not warrant or verify the accuracy,currentness,completeness,noninfringement,merchantability,or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this
message.
Hole Montes,Inc.reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or
indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data.
The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose.The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the
applicability of the information.
Hole Montes,Inc.makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free.However,Hole Montes,Inc.assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectly as
a result of errors,omissions,or discrepancies in the installation or use of this information.Use of the data indicates that the user accepts the above conditions;if these
conditions are unacceptable,the data should be returned promptly to Hole Montes,Inc.,950 Encore Way,Naples,FL 34110 and all copies should be destroyed.
This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,this serves as notice to you that any
dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately via email at
postmaster0.hmeng corn or by telephone at 239-254-2000.Thank you.
pdf
201804,..001.pdf
402 KB
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
1
Martha S. Vergara
From:JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>
Sent:Friday, April 06, 2018 11:00 AM
To:Minutes and Records
Subject:Mini Triangle PUDZ (Item 9.C)
Attachments:Attached Image
At yesterday’s CCPC hearing, I took notes and showed some of them on the visualizer. I don’t recall which
ones were shown so in an abundance of caution (and without reviewing the video of the meeting), I am
forwarding the attached, which represents all my marked-up pages to be included in the back up. You may
print this email for the backup material as well. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
Original Message-----
From: ITScanner
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 11:52 AM
To: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Attached Image
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in
response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8Packet Pg. 287Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8Packet Pg. 288Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment 8 - CCPC Apr 05 2018 (Documents) (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
9.C.9
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 4896 (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
NaplesNews.com
Published Daily
Naples,FL 34110
Affidavit of Publication
State of Florida
Counties of Collier and Lee
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she
serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County,
Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in
said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na-
ples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said
Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second
class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,for a period of one year next preceding
the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor
promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#
BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 1983933 CPSS-2016-3 PL201600 4500182060
Pub Dates
April 18,2018
6. c rtC /2'1
Sign ture of affiant)
KAROIE¢ANGAS
a a
I Ixx NmaryPudk-Rateofflaida
Sworn to and subscribed before me caan on Gc1xo4I
April 18ThisA Myconm.EapnisJth*2O21
P 2018 w ry
yv,
aamlhz*wmwxa.yMa
larta,f f omerSignatureofaffiant)
9.C.10
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: BCC Ad Affidavit (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
20A 1 WEDNESDAY,APRIL 18,2018 1 NAPLES DAILY NEWS
A Senate candidate with a Q A H e 7 --
v TECHNOLOGY
different type of conviction Best Pricing In Tow ''
West Virginia coal r United Mine Workers of Americas FREE Hearing Tes
baron sees time behind political action committee."But if
e you've got enough money,you can Ot1Cen ypp>
bars as an asset do anything.He ought to be in jail."
While at Taft Correctional Insti-T r
Nicole Gaudiano j' A tution in California, Blankenship I. 15 BR118118 •I' f i..
USA TODAY 8/described himself as a"political -< ' =m--.-,— - ,w
prisoner,"and he continues to fault
WASHINGTON-In West Vir- the government for the 2010 explo-
date Don
Senate primary,condi-
tsionhat
at the Upper Big Branch mine
SALEdateDonBlankenshipisrunningthatkilled29men.The Mine Safety
on a different kind of record. and Health Administration blamed
The former CEO ofMassey Ener- Don Blankenship,former CEO of the company for safety violations
gy served a one-year sentence, Massey Energy,is a candidate In and assessed$10.8 million in pen-
ending in May 2017,for conspiring West Virginia's Republkan alties. But Blankenship says a BOB BAKER SHOEStoviolateminehealthandsafetyprimaryforU.S.Senate. change in airflow, required by
standards in connection with the Blankenship served time for MSHA,caused the explosion. Beautiful,Comfortable Shoes for Women
nation's deadliest coal mining ex- conspiring to violate mine health He says the Department of Jus-
plosion in decades.Blankenship's and safety standards in tice Office of Professional Respon- ! Special HALF PRICEperiodofsupervisedreleaseconnectionwiththenation's sibility is reviewing his prosecu- I Selection at
doesn't end until May 9,the day af- deadliest coal mining explosion in tion.A DOJ spokesman declined to I
ter the primary,according to court decades.STEVE HELBER/Apr comment. 720 515 Ave.S.,Naples,FL•Hrs:Man-Sat 10-5.282-8358
records.Blankenship's candidacy is bol-
But Blankenship said he was stered by an"anti-establishment
falsely imprisoned"by the Obama ship's primary opponents-Rep. vibe"In West Virginia,particularly I LawnReplacement 1
administration,and he doesn't see Evan Jenkins and the state's attor- from those in the southern part of
that as a political liability-not to ney general, Patrick Morrisey - the state,who don't trust that the ' MALONEY'SWestVirginianswhoaccusetheshowBlankenship, 68,is within government was fair to him,said
former president of waging a war striking distance of the lead.He is a Patrick Hickey,an assistant profes-
on coal and their livelihoods.To self-funded candidate who can sor at West Virginia University.
I/him,such an"improper"convic- laugh when he says,"I don't need National Republicans aren't
tion can be a political asset, any money"and blankets the air- sure whether Blankenship can win
It was, he noted, for former waves with his message.the primary,but they're concerned
South African President Nelson His spin on his conviction could that if he does,hell lose the general NOaOb7 too Big or too Small"Mandela,who spent 27 years in help him with hard-core Repubil- election against his likely oppo-
prison for fighting an apartheid cans looking for the most anti-es- nent,Democratic Sen.Joe Man- Naples&Bonita•239-775.9339
government."There are situations tablishment candidate In the race, chin.Trump hasn't weighed in on
WWW IfffltO f6 fiOlt>1.CORlinhistorywherebeinginprisonsaidLarrySabato,director of the the race,but he notably sat be- y
was an advantage,"he said."I think University of Virginia's Center for tween Jenkins and Morrlsey re-
that's the case in West Virginia." Politics, cently at a tax reform roundtable viscount to:op„ I 05H2OI00nRW
Blankenship is not the only 2018 "It's a good strategy," Sabato with elected officials in West Vir- Mod'D•C'BCl samrdars cenn.e FRFR Q..candidate who is still considered said."Take a negative and make it a ginia.Blankenship was not invited GNP lz000NF,nam Mailable
viable despite legal baggage.Mi- positive.That's one of the cardinal to the event,held on the eighth an- Call now&save up to 80%on your pnesc l pti on
chael Grimm,a GOP candidate for rules of politics." niversary of the mine explosion. Cinis 2emg it pills....._....... .........$278.57
his former New York House seat, But Mark Dorsey,a retired coal "It's delusional to think that Domperidone lOmg......._.........300 pins.................._.......,...$704.79
pleaded guilty in 2014 to tax fraud, miner from R+vesville,said the coal spending a year in a California pris- tura 100 mg.... 48 pins.................................$u215
and former Maricopa CountySher- miners he knows are"flabbergast- on+s an asset,"said Nachama Solo-P B tliquiasm¢...............................teaGhins..........................f8or.ee I
iff Joe Arpa+o,an Arizona Senate ed" by Blankenship's re-emer- velchlk,a Morrisey spokeswoman.
candidate,was pardoned by Presi- gence.Theythink hegot off easy "I'm not sure whatplanet Don is COIl,Ots°me&......................2a tablets............................$
70479
nralle Bot 9.lmt.....................24 patches...........................f709.1J
dent Donald Trump last year for a with a misdemeanor. running on,but It's not Earth,and Prices shown are for the.,>--is-'uivalent
contempt of court conviction in a "The audacity for him to run for it's sure as heck not West Virginia.211-1 13,113311 111,11 I NI I
racial profiling case. a public office I think is terrible," Joe Manchin would crush Don I•„le r Ill 101 f r 1 I 1 II
Polls commissioned by Blanken- said Dorsey,a representative of the Blankenship in the fall." 941-421-7155
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES
Notwe is ham.given that the Cofer C...and.Caw.*:R.,wEheHapublic hearing onlaw a,2010, ACCESS EVERYTHING YOU NEED,commencing ea PROS ,N der Board of County Commission.Chamber,Third Floor,Coles County Government Center,3299
E.T"nami Tr.,Nage,FL
Ther purpose of the hewmya to con..
AN 0.INANCE OF oreses OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO -05.
ROACOUNT,
TIM COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PL.FOR THE I O/AOAI/. YOU/i• IAMENDED,
UN.CORPORATED AREA OF LLER cOUMFY FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND mss'`e'er%' U.ELEMENT AND FUTUI.LAND IRF.MAP Acte MAP SERIES DV ADDING.THF.MIM-TRIANGLE.MIXED USE
S.DISTRICT MALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO377 NG UNITS,00 HOTEL SUITES,IM
AMSTED LIVING umirs,AND 100,030 SQUARE MT FCOMMERCIAL.ES INSYUSIVe OF FANO SQUARE FEET
F0SUAREFEETOFC.DEALERSHIP.T.SMIJECTPROPERTYLSLOCATEDNEAR Enjoy more access to your kitchen with customT
SOF R.ROFT INTERSECTONOFDAVISRDL,LEYA..13TafmAAT,LMLEASTINMATION
pull-out shelves for your existing cabinets.ruTOWNSHIPeranrEL oTHEADOPTED
AME25
EDMENT TO FLORIDA DER.TENTO rorM'IC`o:os; :
PROVIDING FOR...R.1LITV AND PROVIDING FORAM EFFECTIVE DATE.1.016000306e) a
C
0.1NANCE OP THE BO.D OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA LADING
ORDINANCE No.2.41,.AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELIIPMENT CODE,WHICE1
EST.LISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS POR T.UNINCORPOR.ED AREA OF C.LIER
CLASSIFICATION OF THE CTR
THE MO.USE SUUI.STRICtCT
THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS EY C.NGINGTHEZONING IOPTHEGATEWAYTRIANGLEMI...DIST.,OVERLAY tC4.GEM1.MXq A
nTEEWYTIANGIDAMIXESu3ETRICT
OVN1PERLAYENI
IN
ZONING DISTRICT FORAIPRO3e:
pk
liatiSidi+
AY TRIANGLE 3HxsD u.DISTa16T
MAXA
ITTHE311
11.130LE MPIFFICaTO A...ONSTRUCTION OF UP TO,WITH A MIX TO RE DETERMINER n r'
300 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL 19ES,AND WINO SQUARE FEET OF GENERAL AND
MEDICA30
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS,. L OFFICE
a n t
w ASSISTED LIVING CYOVIS 60000 SQUARE FEET OP SELFSTORAGE AND MOW SQUARE FEET OF CAR
DEALERSHIUSES,
1.
CO.FROr THE
INTERGFORMAX
ON OF us .ULEV.
IGHT OP IMFEETO.
TRPROARTVI
r A011,10...0WsSmeo.SOUTHERN
1
AltSOUTH.RANGE 25E.T,ECOLLIER COCVMY.FLORIDA.CONSISTIINGOF.535a
TRAIL INSECTION FORREPEALOF l _
CONDITIONAL USE RESOLITIONSt AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.111.201600100311=
I PROJECT I
LOCATNIN WINo
p
9'V
S DAVIBBIVD E
9 IrZ
rtedP.M imvtedmeppeereno Mheard.Copes of Reproves.ORDINA.ES.be made available formpaction
at toComprehensive Planning Section,HON Horseshoe Ds.Naples,FL.between We hours of BOO AM
and 500 P.M Monday thhFnday Furthermore Me materials WIll be made spection at the Cotler County ClaMb
Office Fourth Floor,Suite API.Collier County Government Center,East Naples.one week prior to...Wiled hearing.Arty
que.one perm Span.,sho.Mtlrected to the GMO Zoning DolmaCmp.enew Planning Section Watt
COM..filed er.h the C.to the BaWS Office prior to WES,2013 MI be read and considered at the ouble bean..
II a shel r j
considered 0 S,CTtoeppng or heOcCI00
e by,
50
ne colic watryToawdCoil,tyc
0h
purporewimmpect0
any
omsurea
a
d.1 AAH
erati,,
reouchmeetingceManna.,
0,
nerdarecord
iof
1fisancludes for
000purposen
may Heal to assure mu EVERYTHING WITHIN REACH'
a verbatim recon of the proceedings remade wnkM1 record Incluoee Me testimony and nNenro upon M.0e ypW ie to M
5 you am a person with a daWNry Mo needs any accommodation In order to pert.to in this proceeding,you are walled,at
no byoa.toNeprSuite 11
Naples FL34112-owe.ronWpt...County
ayspnor
Mn.gameng.
Asian,
lmM.dM
OFF INSTALLATION33
cost to
ns
oTrillheprovisionof artan
FL3ance.
Plememoonta2te le,Nleattwo dM Pr Managemeng.
Aision.
atenim
tl«.c for the hearing imposed are ave.le in Sw Bawd of County COmovesai ise Office. 50%
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY.FLORIO*
ANDY SOLIS,CHASM. Schedule your free design consultation
DWIGHT E.BROCX,CLERK 888)886-6133 • shelfgenie.com
By:T.m..cnnon
Deputy C.(SEAL) limit one H.Appler0,whamy d6w .e Gras.wpa9"s GldsOn'sneba.
Mil 111.2018 N0.1933933
Espies 0312018.UNtimwenaMy voH forCACMuawRsgnw Solutions
9.C.10
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: BCC Ad Affidavit (4896 : Mini-Triangle PUDZ)
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., FEBRUARY 15, 2018, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES,
FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE
FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 18, 2018
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PUDA-PL20160000087: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-20, as amended, the Calusa Island
Village Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow up to two single family dwelling
units as an alternative to commercial and multi-family development in the
Commercial/Mixed Use Area of the PUD; and providing for an effective date, for property
located on the south side of Goodland Drive (C.R. 892), approximately one half mile
south of San Marco Road (C.R. 92), in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, Principal Planner]
B. PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida,
specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map
Series by adding the Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict to allow construction of up to
210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of gross floor area
of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial
office uses, all with conversions; providing for maximum height of 168 feet. The subject
property is located near the southern corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard
and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of
5.35 acres; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for
an effective date. (Companion to PL20160003054 Mini-Triangle MPUD and LDCA-
PL20160003642) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner]
C. PL20160003054: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property
from a General Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle
Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Mini-Triangle
MPUD to allow construction of up to 210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up
to 74,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square
feet of gross floor area of commercial office uses, all with conversions; providing for
maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near the southern corner of the
intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.35± acres; providing for
repeal of conditional use resolutions; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to
PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and LDCA -PL20160003642)
[Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner]
D. LDCA-PL20160003642: An Ordinance of the Board Of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One,
Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the
Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four – Site
Design and Development Standards, including section 4.02.06 Standards for Development
in Airport Zones, to exempt the Mini-Triangle Subdistrict of the Urban Designation,
Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan from the Standards for
Development in Airport Zones; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five,
Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
(Companion to PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and
PL20160003054 Mini-Triangle MPUD) [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC
Manager]
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJORN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
AGENDA ITEM 9-C
MINI TRIANGLE MPUD
PUDZ-PL20160003054
The below documents contained in CityView, which have not been printed but were submitted as
part of this petition, may be accessed via the GMD Public Portal.
• Amendment to Purchase Agreement
• Contract or Bill of Sale (Purchase Agreement)
• Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Report
• Ten Principles for Rebuilding Neighborhood Retail
• Higher-Density Development Myth and Fact
• Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development
DIRECTIONS TO ACCESS PETITION DOCUMENTS
1. Access CityView Portal here: http://cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb.
2. Under Planning Department, click on “Status and Fees.”
3. Input the Project # or Name (from Agenda).
4. Click on Documents and Images.
5. Click on any document in the GMD Portal to open for viewing. The below documents are not
hyperlinked.
MINI TRIANGLE MPUD
PUDZ-PL-20160003054
PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW:
AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT
MINI TRIANGLE MPUD
PUDZ-PL-20160003054
PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW:
CONTRACT OR BILL OF SALE
(PURCHASE AGREMENT)
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 3
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M
To: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: January 23, 2018
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Mini Triangle PUDZ
PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20160003054 [REV: 5]
PETITION NAME: Mini Triangle Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
REQUEST: This petition requests a rezone of a ±5.35-acre property from the C-4 General Commercial Zoning
District and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Development (GTMUD-MXD) Zoning Overlay District to the Mini
Triangle Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District to allow up to 210 multi-family dwelling
units (with a maximum of up to 400 multi-family dwelling units through conversions of other uses) with associated
amenities such as recreational uses, open spaces, parking, and temporary sales facilities; 152 hotel suites (with a
maximum of up to 200 hotel units through conversions of other uses) ; 74,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, movie
theater, and personal services and up to 60,000 square feet of professional or medical offices (with a combined retail
and office maximum of 200,000 square feet through conversions of other uses); plus, accessory uses of caretaker’s
residence, temporary display of merchandise, and customary accessory uses and structures to commercial
development including parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, and similar structures.
Additional potential uses could be developed only through the application of the Land Use Conversion Matrix and
could include a maximum of 150 assisted living facility units, a maximum of 60,000 square feet of indoor air-
conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage, a maximum of 30,000 square feet of new car dealership, and any
other comparable principal uses.
In the proposed MPUD Document, Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses, D. Land Use Conversion Factors contains a
table that may be used to convert from one allowable use to another just as long as the uses do not exceed the
maximum total daily trips of 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips. To ensure that this development remains
mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi-family residential uses and a combination of 30,000 square feet of
retail, restaurant, office, or other allowable commercial uses shall be developed, regardless of any conversion
allowances. Converted uses may result in an increase in the maximum units, square footages, and/or densities
stated in the Principal Uses. Because this MPUD allows converting one land use to another, the final uses that may
be constructed as a part of this project will be unknown at the time of the approval of the PUD. Submittal 5
includes a specific trigger at which point no further permits would be issued to the developer until the
minimums for mixed use are developed (the last undeveloped tract on the PUD Master Plan). The companion
Growth Management Plan amendment petition includes a requirement for the PUD to include a trigger to
insure the PUD develops as mixed use.
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 3
LOCATION: The property, made up of six parcels, is on the south side of Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and the north side
of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and the eastern boundary is located approximately 550 feet east from the intersection
of those two roads, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Overlay; Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and within the “mini triangle” of that Overlay as shown on the Future Land
Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relative to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict
allows residential uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A); however, the B/GTRO allows up to
12 DU/A for mixed use projects to encourage redevelopment within this overlay. The “mini triangle” is identified
in the B/GTRO as a catalyst project for spurring redevelopment with greater density and intensity allowing for
greater flexibility in site design and development standards.
This PUD proposes 210 multi-family dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of commercial, and
60,000 square feet of office. The 210 multi-family dwelling units calculates to a density of approximately 39 DU/A,
(210 DUs ÷ 5.35 A = 39.25 DU/A). Should the developer apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total
of 400 multi-family dwelling units, this would calculate to a density of approximately 75 DU/A, (400 DUs ÷ 5.35
A = 74.77 DU/A). The 152 hotel suites translate to a density of 28 units per acre, (152 Units ÷ 5.35 A = 28.41
units/acre). Should the developer apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total of 200 hotel units, this
would translate to a density of 37 units per acre, (200 Units ÷ 5.35 A = 37.38 units/acre).
The existing future land use designations do not allow all of the uses and densities proposed in this PUD. However,
there is a companion GMP Amendment and petition to establish a Subdistrict on this site. This PUD must be
consistent with that proposed Subdistrict.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the
following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold italicized text].
Policy 5.6:
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the
Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in
its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.]
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and
arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of
the Land Development Code. [This site has frontage on two arterial roads; Tamiami Trail East abuts the Mini
Triangle site along the south side and Davis Blvd. abuts the site along the north side. The application’s “Subject
Site Exhibit ‘C’ Master Plan” depicts a connection to both arterial roadways.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby
collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The application’s “Subject Site Exhibit ‘C’
Master Plan” depicts a road that will help circulate vehicles throughout the property.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points
with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets
between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The application’s “Subject
Site Exhibit ‘C’ Master Plan” depicts a ‘potential’ interconnect to the adjoi ning properties to the east and the
west.]
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common
open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The Master Plan does not show sidewalks,
but the PUD does not include sidewalks in “Exhibit ‘E’ Mini Triangle MPUD List of Deviations from the Land
Development Code (LDC),” therefore, provision of sidewalks will be consistent with LDC. Exhibit ‘C’ includes
an open space table showing that the amount of open space acreage (0.8 acres) provided is equal to the required
open space. The blend of densities, civic facilities, and range of housing prices and types were not addressed in
this application.]
Please note the Mini Triangle MPUD petition is contingent upon approval of the companion small-scale Growth
Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL-20160003084/CPSS-2016-3. The companion petition is
currently seeking to amend the Future Land Use Element [FLUE] by establishing the Mini Triangle Subdistrict in
order to allow a high density and intensity catalyst project to spur redevelopment.
Consistency with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan will be contingent, in part, upon
the companion GMP amendment being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for
the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment.
Review of PUD Document
• Exhibit ‘E’ List of Deviations from LDC, Architectural Standards:
o 1. Please reword this deviation (especially the words “without restriction”), it is not consistent with
the agreement between staff and the applicant to establish a “trigger” for ensuring a mixed use
project. This deviation is also listed on Exhibit C, Subject Site Master Plan “Schedule of
Deviations”.
CONCLUSION
This rezone petition may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section
PUDZ-PL2016-3054 Mini Triangle R5dw.docx
p
0 200 400 600100
Feet
Ha rb or LN
Curtis STHo l id ay LN
Frederick STKirk wo o d AV E
Cl ark CT
Li n w o o d WAY
Monroe AVE
Zoning: RSF-4
Zoning: CITY OF NAP LES
Zoning: RMF -6
Zoni ng: C-4-GTMUD-MXD
Zoning: C-4-GTMUD-MXD
Zoni ng: C-5-GTMUD-MXD
D av is BLV D
Tamiami TRL E
5th AVE S
GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) FOR MINI TRIANGLE MPUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
³
SUBJECT PROPERT Y:Min i Trian gle MPUD
Density:12 (only as a mixed use project)
RSF-3 RMF-6-GRMUD-R
Densit y:4
Density:3
Density:6
Density:12 (only as a mixed use project)
Density:6
RMF-6
Den sity :6
Densit y:12 (only as a mixed use project)
Tamiami TRL E
FrederickSTTamiamiTRLEMini Triangle MPUD Lidar
LIDAR 2007Feet
7.6 - 8
7.1 - 7.5
6.6 - 7
6.1 - 6.5
5.6 - 6
5.1 - 5.5
4.6 - 5
4.1 - 4.5
3.6 - 4
3.1 - 3.5
2.6 - 3
2.1 - 2.5
1.6 - 2
1.1 - 1.5
-9.4 - 1
*ALL GRADES NAVD
¹
Created by: GIS Team - GMDN12/2017
0 0.025 0.050.0125
Miles
4. 1:4apiyes Datill . . rwo
NaplesNews.com
Published Daily
Naples,FL 34110
Affidavit of Publication
State of Florida
Counties of Collier and Lee
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she
serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County,
Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in
said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na-
ples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said
Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second
class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,for a period of one year next preceding
the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor
promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#
BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 1895229 CPSS-2016-3 and PL20
Pub Dates
January 26,2018
it
iVt
ela,1
Sign ture of affiant)
1 :;""`•,, KAROLEKANGAS l
Or NotaryPudk-State ofFkrlda
Sworn to and subscribed before me
1 cooaelsslon1GG126O41 ,
This January 26,2018 a;'-,P , ,c°""",,E,.,xpires;„9kat2021
Signature of affiant)
NAPLESNEWS.COM I FRIDAY,JANUARY 26,2018 I 23A
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER Notice is hereby given that on Wednesday,February 7,2018,in the
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,3rd Floor,BuildingORDINANCE(S) F," Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East,
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commiuion will hold a public meeting on February 15, Naples, Florida 34112,the Collier County Planning Commission,
2018,commencing a,,,
TM.
m the Board of County Commlesl°nere Chamber,Third Floor County Government sittingas the local planningagency and as the Environmental AdvisoryCOeer,3299 East Tamiami Trail.Naples,FL. 9 Y
The purpose of the hearing ismconsider: Council, will consider an amendment to the Collier County Land
Development Code.The meeting will commence at 5:05 p.m.The title
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,theproposed ordinance is as follows:FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.8A05,AS AMENDED.Tiff ofCOLLIERCOUNTYGROWTH
SPECIFICALLYAPLAN
THE
FUTURTHE
E LAND USE AR OFCOLLIERcANDD1FEM COUNTY,FLORIDA,SEE MPAN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COSTRUCTIONN OF UP TO
ADDINGMAPSERIESBYRESIDENTIAL-DWEEILING UNITS,MIXED s!OSUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW,00OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
SQUAREFEET OFGROR AREAOFCOXNIERCIAL RETAIL USES ANDUPT060,em SQUARE NUMBER 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
FEET OF GROSS FLOOROR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USPS,ALL WITH CONVERSIONS;
PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE
EASTIN SECffnOCORNERII,,TOWNsl 50 SOUTHRANGON E25EAST,BOULEVARDTINGO 413 ACRES;
ANILAMI ND LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BY PROVIDING FOR:SECTION ONE,FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE IPL20160003084/CPSS.201631 RECITALS;SECTION TWO,FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE,
a ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
AN ORDINANCE of THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWER COUNTY, CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING:
FLORIDAG ORDINANCE No.200441,AS ENDED THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND CHAPTER ONE-GENERAL PROVISIONS,INCLUDING SECTION
DEVELOPMENTENT CODE, AMWHICHESTABLISHEDTHECOMPREHENSIVEZONINGREGULATIONS
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING TIE 1.08.02 DEFINITIONS;CHAPTER TWO-ZONING DISTRICTS AND
APPROPAPRIATEZONING CHANGIZONINGHERMDESCBDRELPROPERTYFROGEAL COMMERCIAL DISTIICiUSES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.03 COMMERCIAL ZONING
THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY DISTRICTS,SECTION 2.03.04 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,tc-4GINIUD.ULRD1 ZONING DISTRICT TOA MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE
MIXEDUSESUBDISTRICTOFTHEGATEWAYTIU.GLEMIXEDUSEDISTRICTOVERLAY(APUD- SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION
AALOWW COONNSTRRUCTIONIOFRUPP
TCT
OSIB PROJECT KNOWNDWWELLINNGG 1 IS,152
HGLE
OTEL SUITES,
S,
2.03.08 RURAL FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS;CHAPTER THREE
UP To 74,006 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND ane - RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION 3.05.07TO60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES,ALL WITH
CONVERSIONS;PROVIDING FOR MAXNIUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET,ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON PRESERVATION STANDARDS;CHAPTER FOUR-SITE DESIGN
THE
INSECTI
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND I'S TRAILEASTSECTIONII,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01
ANDYACE,PRVIDINGPai"coNDInoNAL USE RESOLUTIONS:BPROVIDINGATE216wwaDIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN BASE
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.02.03 SPECIFIC STANDARDS
FERAICT FOR LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES,
LIGATION SECTION 4.02.04 STANDARDS FOR CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL
0 DESIGN,SECTION 4.02.06 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
8. `+,,
sAIRPORT
ZONES,SECTION 4.02.14 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DAVIS BLVD g DEVELOPMENT IN THE ST AND ACSC-ST DISTRICTS,SECTION
4, a 4.03.04 LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT;CHAPTER SIX
w4„ INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC
tFACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 6.01.05e
pp,\
SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN; CHAPTER
N NINE-VARIATIONS FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS,INCLUDING
SECTION 9.03.03 TYPES OF NONCONFORMMES, SECTION
All interested,partiesionesi
00GMo
ZZppooeennaarr
be heard.Copies a the proposed ORDINANCE(SI will be made 9.04.04 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR AFTER-THE-
NAples,betweenthoho0heM M.and5i40iPM)MuMeyihroughMAYFurtherm«Rao,°
them"aiarllswllil`>a FACT ENCROACHMENT;CHAPTER TEN-APPLICATION,REVIEW,
ode available for inspection at the collier County clerk's Office,Fourth Floor collier County Government center, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES,INCLUDING SECTION3299EastTamiamiTrail,Suite 401 Naples o k prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining
to the documents should be directed to the GED Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning section.Written 10.01.02 DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRED,SECTION 10.02.09misfiledwiththeClerktotheBoard's Office prior to February 15,2018,wit be read and considered at the
public nearing. REQUIREMENTS FORTEXT AMENDMENTSTOTHELDC,SECTION
8e person decides to appeal any deciEon made by the Collier Cowry Planning Commission with respect to any 10.02.13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD)PROCEDURES,
matter comidened at such meeting or nearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he SECTION 10.03.06 PUBUC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGSyneedtoensurethataverbatimrecordoftheproceedingsismatte,which record includes the teslimorry andmayevidence FOR LAND USE PETITIONS; SECTION FOUR, ADOPTION OF
n you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation In order to participate in this proceeding,you AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY OFFICIAL ZONING
are entitled,at no cast to you,m the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier county Facilities ATLAS, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING:Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 341123356,(239)252-8380,at
least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted!atoning devices Es the hearing impaired are available in the Boas ZONING MAP NUMBERS 522930,2033N,2033S,2034N,2034S TO
of County Commissioners Office.
REMOVE THE ACSC DESIGNATION FOR CONSISTENCY WITH
cP.CuM'PnnlieroulanigCommission THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN;SECTION FIVE,CONFLICT
January28,2018 ND-1895229 AND SEVERABILITY;SECTION SIX,INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;AND SECTION SEVEN,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER Location of amendments to allowed uses:
AN ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby gives that a public hearing will be held by the
County
County Ylae,cor,
CRONE Cw,rO
Commission(CCPC)at 9:00 A.M.,February 15,2018,in the Board of County Commissioners
PI°`tea
Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail.Naples i•
FL.,to consider 8,1M110WI
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER II•I:COUNTY,AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-20.AS AMENDED,
lli
iw;ITHE
FLORIDA.FL
ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUG), 1
ALLOW UP TO TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS AN ALTERNATIVE Si
TO COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL/
MIXED USE AREA OF THE PUD:AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, r..`
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOODLAND DRIVE(C.R. a
892),APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SAN MARCO ROAD(C.R.
92),IN SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH.RANGE 27 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.[PUDA-PL20160000087]. Location of amendments to Official Zoning Atlas:
u
ir
o
m LOCATION OF ZONING
i ATLAS CHANGE
Sen Marco RD jNbili
ci i :1
4!..
i)
O PROJECT 1
l.
oglIOZICATIONcOi i
1'/';('''..
1,
c,- tiL
Gwc s
r)
All interestedpsparties are is are to appearle and be heard.Copies of
thestheproposedamendmentsareavailableforpublicinspectioninthe
All interested parties are invited toappear and beheard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE Zoning and Land Development Review Section,Growth Management
will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office.Fourth Floor,Collier
Department,2800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida,between
County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.
to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Furthermore,materials will be made available for inspection at the
Services Section,prior to February,15,2018. Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Suite 401,Collier County
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County PlauniBR Cmmimien
Government Center,East Naples,one week prior to the scheduled
with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of hearing,
that proceeding.and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation
proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost
is to he based. to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the
If you arca person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate Collier County Facilities Management Division,at 3335 Tamiami Trail
in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two
Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing
Trail East,Suite 101.Naples.FL 34112.5356.(2391 25241380,at lease two days prior to the impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioner's Office.
meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of
County Commissioners Office Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman
Mark Strain.Chairman January 26,2018 ND-1883723
January 26,2018 ND-1897588 .,,m,"
COLLIER COUNTY
Growth Management Department
January 26, 2018
Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property
located within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing
will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on February 15, 2018, in the Board of County
Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLL IER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN
THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-4-GTMUD-MXD)
ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANN ED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT
KNOWN AS THE MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 210 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS, 152 HOTEL SUITES, UP TO 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES
AND UP TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES, ALL WITH
CONVERSIONS; PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET, ON PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE
SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 5.35± ACRES; PROVIDING
FOR REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160003054]
You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing.
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK
ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO
SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE W RITTEN OR GRAPHIC
MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW, A MINIMUM
OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLIC ABLE.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitle d,
at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. P lease contact the Collier County Facilities Management
Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days
prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are avail able in the Board of County Commissioners
Office.
This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth
Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the staff
member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file.
Sincerely,
Eric Johnson
Eric Johnson
Principal Planner
Tamiami TRL E
Bayshore DR5th AVE SGoodlette-Frank RD SDavis BLVD
X2.1
X2
À1
À3
À1
À2
X222
À4À17
À1
À2
À19
À1
À9
À18 À42
À11 À16À1.1
À33 À31
À12À12.1
À12
À5.1À5 À14
À13
À37 À38 À39À35 À12À15
À16
À9
X32
X15
X11X12 X15.2
X12.4 X12.3X12.2
X13 X12.1À2À1À19
À16À14À12
À65.1 À30À32
À1À1
À65
À63
À33 À35À58
À56
À5
X15
À4
X14 À49.1
À50
X13
À35.1
TRACTTRACT
2
189
178
11 167
15612
13 145
34
32
1110987
313064
6362
6
6160
59
5 3358
353457
56
525150
321
4321
TRAC T E
1
5 201918176
7 218 23 24 25 26229
10 31323433 2728293011 TRACT "D"434241
13
14 44 13
15 38 403935 45 12
16 11 10
PH 3 PH 4
32A 33A 34A 43A42A41A40A
4
10
LE CENTREOFF FIFTH LANDCONDOMINIUM
555453
12
3736
32
4
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
2
3
35A
PINE STCLARK ST BROOKSIDE DRIVECOMMERCIAL DRUS 41
AVENUE AFIRST ST
AVENUE BV
PU
V
V
CU
CU
SV
RSF-4
C-4-GTMUD-MXD
C-5-GTMUD-MXD
RSF-3
RMF-6
CITY OFNAPLES
CITY OFNAPLES
C-4-GTMUD-MXD
C-4-GTMUD-MXD
RMF-6-GTMUD-R
Location Map Zoning Map
Petition Number: PL20160003054
PROJECTLOCATION
SITELOCATION
¹
1
JohnsonEric
From:Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>
Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 9:07 AM
To:JohnsonEric
Cc:Robin Singer
Subject:Mini Triangle Project
Eric, one more comment from a transportation perspective:
There are concerns as to the density of the project and traffic impacts, particularly upon US 41 and
intersecting streets within downtown Naples. The typical method (used by State and County) is to
consider a new project for the average time of year (or 100th or 200th highest hour). To do this,
standard adjustments are made to traffic data. The City just completed a downtown mobility study
that determined seasonal traffic conditions were 20% higher than FDOT standard adjustments. For
planning purposes, the City has been looking at peak season and maintaining levels of service during
this particular time. This is, of course, a more conservative approach than how FDOT and Collier
County consider level of service impacts; but the more conservative approach works to insure that a
road segment doesn’t fail any time of year.
The City strongly urges the County to apply a conservative approach to the traffic analysis to
minimize the chance for level of service failure at any point during the year by the project.
Gregg
1
JohnsonEric
From:Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>
Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 11:52 AM
To:Robin Singer; JohnsonEric
Cc:Roger Reinke; Bill Moss; Alison Bickett; Andrew Holland
Subject:RE: Mini Triangle staff report
Eric, Robin,
Additional comments from City transportation review:
1. Sidewalks surrounding the project are specified at 5-foot along US41 and no less than 5-foot
along Davis Blvd. Additionally there is outdoor dining proposed along sidewalks. Based on
this Department’s prior reviews of projects with minimum sidewalk widths of 5-feet, and
particularly where outdoor dining is available, 5-feet is insufficient and does not provide
comfortable walkability for a development that is designed to reduce vehicle trips by its mixed
use zoning. City staff has found that outdoor dining encroaches into pedestrian walkways and
can impede pedestrian mobility. Wider sidewalks are recommended.
2. The project access points do not provide for right-in turns lanes into the site. In regards to
right-in turn lanes, an engineer allocates vehicle trips to access points based on professional
judgment. The threshold for a turn lane on US41 is missed by 12 vehicles out of a total of 388
total vehicles entering the site in the peak hour. Without the deduction for pass-by and internal
capture, the p.m. peak total entering the site would be 447. The need for a turn lane on US41
is just below the minimum threshold. This may result in a diminished level of service for US41
and Davis Blvd., however it is noted that this section of US41 is in a transportation concurrency
exception area, meaning that level of service impacts do not apply to this roadway
segment. From a safety perspective, vehicles slowing down or backing up within the outside
travel lane of Davis and US41 may create a higher potential for rear-end collisions from
vehicles travelling 45 MPH and then having to slow down and adjust to turning vehicles. It is
noted that this condition generally exists along both roadways at this time.
3. Turn lanes or bus pull-out loading areas created outside of vehicle through lanes are frequently
used by transit buses for drop-off and pick-up. The existing bus stop is located within the 45
MPH travel lane of US41, a less than desirable condition. A bus pull-out or turn-lane is
recommended.
Gregg
From: Robin Singer
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Bill Moss <bmoss@naplesgov.com>
Cc: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>; Bob Middleton <RMiddleton@naplesgov.com>; Allyson Holland
<AMHolland@naplesgov.com>; Pete DiMaria <pdimaria@naplesgov.com>; Thomas Weschler
<tweschler@naplesgov.com>; Craig Mole <CMole@naplesgov.com>; Roger Jacobsen <rjacobsen@naplesgov.com>;
Roger Reinke <rreinke@naplesgov.com>
Subject: FW: Mini Triangle staff report
Bill,
2
I have previously distributed plans for this project in the County. They are again asking for any comments from the City.
Robin
From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 9:14 AM
To: Robin Singer <RSinger@naplesgov.com>
Cc: BosiMichael <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Mini Triangle staff report
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Robin,
Good morning. I wanted to reach out to you one last time. Attached is the proposed ordinance for the rezoning
petition for the Mini-Triangle project. This petition will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning
Commission on Tuesday, February 15.
If you want to add any comment or narrative to the staff report on behalf of the City of Naples, now is the time
act. We’ll be going to print early next week. Thanks!
Respectfully,
Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM
Principal Planner - Zoning Division
2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples Florida 34104
Phone: 239.252.2931
Fax: 239.252.6503
Note: Email Address Has Changed Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.org
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
1
JohnsonEric
From:Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:31 PM
To:JohnsonEric
Cc:OrthRichard; Andrew Holland
Subject:RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
Hi Eric,
Please consider the following comments:
The receiving water body that will receive the project stormwater discharge (through standard
stormwater conveyance systems) is Naples Bay. Naples Bay is an impaired water body and sites
discharging to impaired water bodies are required to provide 50% more stormwater quality treatment
than sites not discharging to an impaired water body. The City recommends that the site’s water
management system provide this additional water quality treatment, as should be required by the
SFWMD. Assuming this project applies for an Environmental Resource Permit through the District,
City staff will monitor its progress and review submittals specifically for the additional water quality
treatment requirement. Discharged into or through the US-41 or Davis Blvd rights-of-way should be
review by FDOT as those roads are designated State roadways.
City staff also urges the use of pervious pavements throughout the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Gregg Strakaluse, P.E.
Director-Streets & Stormwater Department
City of Naples, FL
239-213-5003
From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:07 PM
To: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>
Cc: OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, Gregg. Do you want to add any stormwater narrative from the City’s perspective to the County’s staff
report for the Mini-Triangle PUDZ?
The below was provided to me by Richard Orth from the County, who is the stormwater reviewer for these
types of rezoning petitions. I copied Richard in case you needed to have a discussion.
Drainage: The proposed PUDZ request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area,
provided the project’s stormwater management system uses stormwater best management
practices. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through
Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff
2
will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time
of Site Development Plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL).
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: JohnsonEric
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 1:38 PM
To: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>
Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
I should be thanking you.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: Gregg Strakaluse [mailto:gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 1:38 PM
To: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
Thanks much Eric!
From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 12:54 PM
To: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>
Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks for responding, Gregg.
I honestly don’t know if FDOT provided any comments. I would have to defer Michael Sawyer, who works as
a Transportation Planner for the County. Mike’s phone number is 239-252-2926.
With respect to stormwater, Richard Orth was our reviewer for this project. Richard can be reached at 239-252-
5092.
Attached is the TIS you requested.
Let me know if you need anything else. Much appreciated!
3
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: Gregg Strakaluse [mailto:gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:15 AM
To: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>; Bob Middleton <RMiddleton@naplesgov.com>
Cc: Robin Singer <RSinger@naplesgov.com>
Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
Thanks Eric, I’ll take a look at stormwater. From a traffic perspective, has FDOT provided any
comments about LOS impacts on US41 from the project? Could I get a copy of the TIS?
Gregg
From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:15 AM
To: Bob Middleton <RMiddleton@naplesgov.com>
Cc: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>; Robin Singer <RSinger@naplesgov.com>
Subject: FW: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Bob,
It was nice talking to you this morning about the Mini-Triangle PUDZ. Attached are PDFs associated with the
applicant’s latest submittal. Please review and let me know if you have any concerns.
This petition is scheduled for public hearing on February 15, 2018, and I am nearly finished with my staff report
to the Planning Commission. I was wondering if you could provide me with your input. Eric Fey works with
the County’s Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, and he says potable water will be
served from the City of Naples. He defers to you.
The below excerpts are from my staff report. Please review for accuracy and add a sentence or two regarding
potable water of you’d like.
Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area and the south
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are
readily available via existing infrastructure within and adjacent to the property, and sufficient water and
wastewater treatment capacities are available.
Downstream wastewater system capacity must be evaluated at the time of development permit (SDP or
PPL) review and must be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from
the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management
Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s
wastewater collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project
4
will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer
District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance.
In the Adequate Public Facilities Letter dated March 27, 2017, the City of Naples has stated likewise
concerning water distribution system improvements necessary to serve this project.
When evaluating each petition, I am also tasked with responding to the below criteria. I’ll need your input on
these…
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The subject site fronts on Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard. Wastewater collection mains
are readily available within the Tamiami Trail East right-of-way and extending into the property
from Commercial Drive, and there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed
PUD. Staff does not have concerns about drainage provided that all future development will
comply with the requirements of the SFWMD.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
Developer sponsored upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system will be needed to
accommodate the proposed development. The scope of system improvements will be determined
at the time of SDP or PPL permit review.
I am copying Gregg Strakuluse to keep him in the loop. Richard Orth is the County stormwater reviewer for
rezoning petitions, and he already gave me his narrative and responses for the staff report. Gregg, feel free to
review and provide comment if you’d like. There is also a drainage component to criterion #1 above.
Drainage: The proposed PUDZ request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area,
provided the project’s stormwater management system uses stormwater best management
practices. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through
Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will
evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of Site
Development Plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL).
Thanks, guys!
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: FeyEric
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 2:48 AM
To: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>
5
Cc: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
Eric,
Coordinate with the City of Naples regarding water service. As for wastewater service, I suggest the following responses
to the criteria:
1. Wastewater collection mains are readily available within the Tamiami Trail East right-of-way and
extending into the property from Commercial Drive, and there is adequate wastewater treatment
capacity to serve the proposed PUD.
7. Developer sponsored upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system will be needed to
accommodate the proposed development. The scope of system improvements will be determined at
the time of SDP or PPL permit review.
Here is my suggested narrative:
Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area and the south wastewater
service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via
existing infrastructure within and adjacent to the property, and sufficient water and wastewater treatment
capacities are available.
Downstream wastewater system capacity must be evaluated at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL)
review and must be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public
Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review
Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater collection/transmission
system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the
owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at
the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance.
In the Adequate Public Facilities Letter dated March 27, 2017, the City of Naples has stated likewise concerning
water distribution system improvements necessary to serve this project.
Respectfully,
Eric Fey, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division
Continuous Improvement
NOTE: Email Address Has Changed
3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-5361
Phone: 239.252.1037 Cell: 239.572.0043
From: JohnsonEric
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:46 AM
To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer)
6
Eric,
I’m not sure how to respond to these criteria. Is the below acceptable to you as it relates to your discipline?
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The subject site fronts on Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard. Staff does not have
concerns about drainage provided that all future development will comply with the requirements
of the SFWMD. Confirmed by Rick Orth
Water and wastewater transmission mains are readily available within the Tamiami Trail East
and David Boulevard rights-of-way, and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment
capacity to serve the proposed MPUD. However, the applicant will be required to make the
necessary upgrades to the mains at the time of SDP or PPL (see Recommendation on page x of
this staff report). Eric Fey to confirm
…
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The subject property and surrounding area is located within a redevelopment area of the
County. Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater service is available
to the site and surrounding area. However, with respect to wastewater, the County does not possess
the collection capacity to service the project without the applicant making the necessary upgrades
to the gravity sewer system directly adjacent to their site. The evaluation of the infrastructure and
necessary upgrades will occur at the time of SDP or PPL (see Recommendation on page x of this
staff report). Eric Fey to confirm
…
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of XXXX
contingent upon the following:
1. Any landscaping proposed within the Tamiami Trail East and David Boulevard rights-of-way require
approval from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
2. The language for Deviation #2 on sheet 3 of 3 of Exhibit C shall be the same as that in Exhibit E.
3. Eric Fey to provide.
In advance, thanks!
7
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: JohnsonEric
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 4:04 PM
To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; SummersDan
<Daniel.Summers@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Lockhart, Amy' <lockha@collierschools.com>; ShawinskyPeter
<Peter.Shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov>; BeardLaurie <Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov>
Cc: DeselemKay <Kay.Deselem@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ)2
These are included as well.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: JohnsonEric
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 3:08 PM
To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; SummersDan
<Daniel.Summers@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Lockhart, Amy' <lockha@collierschools.com>; ShawinskyPeter
<Peter.Shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov>; BeardLaurie <Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov>
Cc: DeselemKay <Kay.Deselem@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: FW: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ)
Good afternoon. Attached is the latest submittal for the Mini-Triangle PUDZ. You weren’t included in the
review queue for this submittal because you didn’t have comments from the previous submittal. This submittal
is on a 5-day review because the petition is scheduled for CCPC on February 15.
Feel free to review the attached and let me know if you have any issues by next Friday (January 19).
I’ll need Summer’s, Richard’s, and Eric’s narrative for the staff report by Monday, January 22. In advance,
thank you.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.
From: SernaBritoAlma
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:46 PM
8
To: bobmulhere@hmeng.com; stephaniekarol@hmeng.com
Cc: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>; SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov>; MoxamAnnis
<Annis.Moxam@colliercountyfl.gov>; FaulknerSue <Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov>; MastrobertoThomas
<Thomas.Mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov>; AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; SawyerMichael
<Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; BosiMichael
<Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov>; VelascoJessica <Jessica.Velasco@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ)
Good afternoon,
Re: Application acceptance for your project knows as:
PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ)
Please be aware this is a Minor Submittal it has a 5 business day review.
Attention: Hole Montes, Inc. Robert Mulhere, FAICP
Your application has been accepted and sent for processing. You can check for updates to your application online here:
http://cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb/Planning/StatusReference?referenceNumber=PL20160003054.
This email was sent from Collier County, FL - 2017.4 SP6.
Thank you,
Alma Serna Brito
Project Coordinator, Client Services
Growth Management Department
Operations & Regulatory Management Division
NOTE: Email Address Has Changed
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104
Client Services: 239.252.1036 Phone: 239.252.7344
How are we doing?
The Operations & Regulatory Management Division wants to hear from you!
Please take our online SURVEY.
We appreciate your feedback!
Before printing this email, assess if it is really needed.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
February 15,2018
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF TI{E
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, February 15,2018
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florid4 with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Patrick Dearborn
Diane Ebert
Edwin Fryer
Karen Homiak
ABSENT: Joe Schmitt
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, ZonngManager
Fred Reischl, Principal Planner
Eric John, Principal Planner
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attomey
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
Page I of67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Bob.
Now, our next item up is actually three items. We have three advertised public hearings for one
propefty. We're going to - actually for -- it's a collection of properties. We're going to discuss all three items
concurrently, and we'll vote on each one separately.
kl'll read them all offas we do our disclosures and other issues. First of all, 9 -- it's advertised
public hearing 9B. It's PL20160003084/CPSS20l6-3, and it's forthe mini-triangle mixed-use subdistrict, and
this is the Growth Management Plan request part of it.
The second item up is the companion PUD for that same project; it's PL20160003054. And the third
item that would be partly discussed with this is an LDC amendment that's needed for this project; it's
LDCA-PL2o160003642.
All those wishing to testiff on behalf of any of these three items, please rise to be sworn in by the
court reporter.
The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Disclosures on the Planning Commission, and we'll start down at the end with Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than those that are part of the public record.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I had a meeting with Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Pezeshkan and
Mr. Starkey, and I had some email correspondence with Ross Mclntosh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had telephone conversations and email exchanges with Mr. Mulhere,
including his client, Mr. Starkey. I have -- had a conversation with Naples Vice Mayor Penniman, and I have
met with representatives of the Old Naples Association regarding airport issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have had with Bob Mulhere, I have spoke with the CRA, and also
with Mr. Mclntosh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine are lengthy. Im goingto save mine for last.
Patrick.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just standard communication with Bob Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? I'm working both sides to the middle.
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Oh. You're confusing me. I spoke to Mulhere and Mr. Starkey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this project from its beginning, we started out with some -- an
RFP and some contracts. I actually reviewed those with some of the county staffat that time way back when.
I also met with the applicant and his team for a long period of time on Tuesday. I separately met
with staffyesterday for another long period of time.
When this project was first conceived and awarded, they produced some renderings that were rather
dramatic and really portrayed what this project was going to be to the county. I have used those in various
presentations that I've done around Collier County. ln some of those presentations, I was approached by
many people about further discussions. I cannot remember all the people that I talked to, but I did talk to
Vice Mayor Linda Penniman at one poin! and I also talked to several of our county commissioners on a
one-to-one and others that may have seen some of the presentatlon.
And then I did receive this morning an email that I've -- it's different than the other ones. I received it
from one of our Planning Commission members, Mr. Fryer.
And, Jeff, as far as how that kind of an email should be handled, do you have any input on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: There are a couple things to consider. One, there's nothing wrong with sending
a one-way communication between each other conveying whatever information you want. Having said that,
if you do, you run the risk of somebody hitting a reply button, and once somebody hits a reply button, you're
now in violation of the Sunshine, all righg so that although you can send a one-way communication, my
advice is don't or, at the very least, be real, real careful if you do, and it really should be something that you
feel is imperative because, again, you run the risk of somebody inadvertently hitting "reply" or even worse,
reply all," which happens all the time.
Page 9 of67
February 15,2018
The other thing that I've seen over the course of the many years is that people blind copy other
people on emails, and you may be replying to people you don't even know that you're replying to. That has
happened on occasion.
So, again, you're allowed to do it, but my recommendation is you don't.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I take the point. And at the time, it was 6 o'clock in the
morning. I mainly sent it to staff people, but I wasn't entirely sure that it would get to where it needed to go,
and it was just simply a document. I thought about the potential for the reply and the Sunshine Law issue, but
I guess I felt that it was very unlikely you would reply to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, you CC'ed me, and I did not reply to you, forthe record, and I
actually did not read the attachment. I wasn't - I hadn't had that issue in the years I've been here occur
before.
I'm going to ask all the Planning Commission members, don't ever email me anything about a case
coming before us, period. The only time I've received an email from a Planning Commission member is if
they're going to be absent and they're just explaining they're going to be absent, and they've copled that to
staff. So I think all of us ought to go by that. It's the safest way to go, and there's no mistakes.
So with that, I conclude my comments on tlat issue.
So, Bob, at this point the presentation's all yours.
MR. MULFDRE: Thank you very much.
Good morning, again. It's my day before the Planning Commission today.
With me this moming, Jerry Starkey, Real Estate Partners lnternational; Fred Pezeshkan; Alex
Pezeshkan; Dick Grant, who is the land-use attomey working with us on this. Barry Jones is our civil
engineer. Normal Trebilcock has a conflict at the moment. We're hoping he'll arrive as soon as he's
completed. He has a meeting actually at another counf building, but that may be a while.
I've had a lot of meetings with Norm over the last two days and a lot of discussion, so I'll attempt not
to delay you, to respond to some of the issues that are transportation related, but we also think he'll get here as
soon as he can.
I'm sure everybody's familiar with the location, but for the public and others who may be interested
at home or wherever, the properly is located just offof the intersection, the triangle created by Davis
Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, and that area is known as the mini-triangle, and it is defined by Commercial
Drive -- Commercial, Davis, and U.S.41.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now you're getting pretly fancy electronically, Bob.
MR. MULFIERE: Now let's see if I can erase it.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's the first time I've seen you do something like that. Good for you.
MR. MULIfiRE: Look atthat. Pretty good.
Moving on. Just a little bit of history. The CRA was -- the Community Redevelopment Agency was
established in March of 2000. That's nearly 18 years ago.
It was established to use tax increment financing and other methods to encourage redevelopment,
economic diversity, and improvement, and to improve the inadequate and aging infrastructure in the CRA.
And the CRA is a lot larger than just the mini-triangle. As many of you know, it covers the
Bayshore/Gateway area as well as the Davis Boulevard/U.S. 41 area.
The mini-triangle is unique, however, in that within the CRA plan and within the Comprehensive
Plan, it is identified as a catalyst site. So the mini-triangle that I just showed you surrounded by Commercial,
Davis, and 4l , is a catalyst site intended to be redeveloped and spur and drive additional economic -- private
sector economic investment or public/private partnerships in the redevelopment area, pafticularly along the
Davis Boulevard area.
This exhibit here we shared with many neighbors both at the NIM and at other meetings. It just gives
you a perspective of the larger area. I think it's a little bit helpful. And the mini-triangle is right here; right
there.
A couple of quick -- oh, I've got to erase that.
A couple of quick photos of the existing conditions. I'm sure many of you drive past this property
fairly regularly. I do. A lot of previously existing businesses are closed down now. There are some smaller
Page l0 of67
February 15,2018
businesses that are still operating. There's been some improvement along Davis. As you know, there's a new
Porsche dealership on the other side of Davis closer to Airport, and there's been some other improvements.
But this particular area has really seen no investment and no improvement over the 20 years that the
CRA has been in place.
More pictures of the area. One of the requirements for establishing a CRA is a finding of blight, and
I think this certainly constitutes that.
This is just a little closer perspective. Subject parcel and the catalyst area, the full mini-triangle.
Our site is 5.33 acres in size, and as Mr. Strain indicated, there are three companion petitions here.
There's the small-scale Growth Management Plan. As you know, a small-scale plan is permitted for projects
that are under 10 acres, and several years ago the State revised the limitations allowing also text to be added
to small-scale. They were previously just map amendments.
So this is a small-scale amendment. It's also a mixed-use planned developmen! and we have a Land
Development Code amendment that is expressly limited to the exclusion from the airport height limitations in
the LDC. There is already one such exclusion granted down closer to the Marco Island airpoft, or the Marco
Shores towers, and obviously we went to both the Naples Airyort Authority and the FAA, and the FAA, we'll
see as we get a little bit later into the presentation, issued several letters, the finding of no hazard.
Let me just point out that you'll see that the proposed zoning is MPUD-GTMUD-MXD. That is
because we are retaining the gateway mixed-use district mixed development standards that are set forth in the
overlay in the LDC for this area; otherwise, it would just be MPUD, but we're retaining those overlay rights.
In having some meetings leading up to this meeting -- there's a lot of words on here. I underlined
what I think are the important ones -- it was suggested that we consider adding a vision, purpose, and intent
statement to the PUD. Everyone kind of understands what our objectives are. Everyone can see the graphics,
and -- but it was suggested that maybe that needed to be clarified a little bit in text. And so I've prepared this
Ianguage. I just want to go over it briefly with you.
The mini-tiangle is intended to be a catalyst project. It's going to spur further development. In order
to facilitate a vibrant mixed-use development and a viable market demand, the PUD, the MPUD, provides for
greater intensity, density, and flexibility.
For the purpose of this PUD-MPUD, mixed use shall include, at a minimum, residential
development multifamily, along with a mix of commercial uses, including retail, restauran! and office uses,
and may include other commercial uses such as a hotel with ancillary commercial uses, a multiplex movie
theater, bowling center, physical fitness facilities, personal services, and other commercial uses.
The development form shall be two or more multi-story structures with commercial uses generally
on the ground floor, but some could be on subsequent floors. A multiplex could be on the third or fourth
floor, for example. Office would certainly be on upper floors with supporting parking on the first four or five
floors, depending on the ultimate development and the nature of the amount of parking that's required.
The PUD does, as you know, establish minimums and maximums for residential density, commercial
intensity to ensure a viable mixed-use development.
I just want to share with you a little bit very quickly, the timeline. December 2015 the county sought
proposals for this property. The CRA selected Real Estate Partners Irternational. We held a pre-application
meeting in November of 2016. We submitted December 21st,2016. So we've been in the review process for
well over a year now.
We had many, many, many, many meetings with staffand with others. We met with the Naples
Airport Authority, as I indicated. We've met with the CRA, both the CRA advisory board and CRA staff. We
had ourNIM on October 18th,2017. We went before the CRA advisory board in an official capacity to
present the project to them on November 7th; received unanimous recommendation. And here we are before
you. Our BCC meeting is scheduled for March 27th.
Let me go back. I want to point out a project right here called Trio. I don't know if you're familiar
with it, but there is -- this site has been cleared and is prepped for development. Mr. Fortino is in the
audience. Mr. Fortino and others are proposing to develop a mixed-use project on that. It's a little bigger
than two acres.
It is - at this point there's an SDP approved for a mixture of residential and hotel uses. The zoning
Page 11 of67
February 15,2018
on this district allows for a zoned height of 112 feet. This project takes advantage of that.
And let me just move on. And this is from the approved Site Development Plan, and you can see the
structure here and parking structure, access here, parking structure. So the site plan has been approved, as I
said -- yikes. There must be an easier way to erase all this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good luck. You're dealing with Microsoft Windows, so...
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, we'll leave that one there. I putthis up here because it shows some
perspectives of the building, so that was my only reason. There's an east perspective and a west perspective.
This is our neighbor immediately adjacent to us.
And the building height -- I've got to erase that. You can't see. As I said, it's 1 12 zoned --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Troy's coming to give you a hand.
MR.MULHERE: Thankyou. Howdoleraseitallatonce? Clear. Well,duh. Thanksforthe
technical support - is 124 feet.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Troy.
MR. MULHERE: And as you know, our zoned height is 160 feet. So there is an appropriate
transition; that was my point in showing you this. There's an appropriate transition from their height to our
height. Though we are higher, it's an appropriate transition.
Now we can ge! I think, into some of the details. By righq the PUD provides for 210 multifamily
units. We have met with staffalong the way, and as is always the case with a mixed-use project, one of the
issues that staffis concerned with and wants to make sure that they address is the assurance that the project
will be mixed use. You know, if you were to go in and just build commercial and walk away, you don't have
a mixed-use project. If you were to go in and build just residential and walk away, you don't have a
mixed-use project.
So we agreed to a minimum number of 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of
mixed commercial uses.
As we went through this process and most recently we heard that that minimum was not reassuring
enough to ensure a really viable mixed use, so we've increased that number -- it's not reflected in your
document so I'm sharing it with you now -- to a minimum of 100 multifamily dwelling units.
Wehavetherighttobuild l52hotelrooms. Wehave 14,000 squarefeetof anymixtureofretail,
restaurant. We have been talking to very high-end Cineplex operators. We've been talking to hotel - I say
rye" -- my clients have been talking to hotel operators. Flags that you would know, flags that you would
immediately recognize. We've been talking to national restaurateurs. Again, high end and names that you
would recognize, but we're not at liberty to disclose those.
Also, the maximum heighg as I think I mentioned, is 168 -- according to the Naples Airport
Authority and the FAA letters of findings of no hazard, the maximum height that they can support and have
approved is 168 feet above mean sea level. The Naples - I guess the Naples runway, the Naples site is eight
feet above mean sea level, so that allows for a height of 160 feet.
As far as the way the county measures height, we would be a zoned height of 160 feet and an actual
height of 168 feet and that keeps us within the restrictions that the FAA included within their letters.
CTIAIRMAN STRAN: BOb?
MR. MULI{ERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I don't mean to intemrpt your presentation. I try never to do that.
Could you back up on that.
If you're already at eight feet NGVD at the airport and you are now going to build to zoned height of
160 feet NGVD, that gives you I 52 feet more building height. Right or wrong?
MR. MULHERE: Zoned is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, zoned, it's 160 NGVD.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. So zoned is measured from --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're already at eight.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So the actual should -- we just -- we don't reflect this NGVD in the
document today. This came about as discussions. You're absolutely right. It should just be the actual NGVD.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's -- I'm worried that you're going to be shorting yourself eight feet.
Page 12 of 67
February 15,2018
MR. MULHERE: You're right. It should bejust the actual height. And we didn't - that's not in the
document. That would be a change that we would make here today. So I appreciate that. Thank you.
We also have a conversion matrix. These have been used many times in Collier County. They are
typically based on trip generation rates. Ours is based on trip generation rates. We have a maximum p.m.
peak hour trip generation of 875 two-way p.m. peak hour unadjusted trips. That is the marimum threshold
that cannot be exceeded.
h discussing this with staff, they also wanted to ensure an)'thing statutorily -- we may be even
required - to identifu maximum levels of intensity and density. You're not required to typically establish
minimum, though we have those, but you are, I think, required to establish maximums.
So we've established a maximum of 400 multifamily units, 200 hotel unis,200,000 square feet of
any combination ofthe commercial uses, and then these other uses can only come about ifthe conversion is
utilized, and that's 150 ALF unis subject to a 0.45 floor area ratio; 60,000 square feet of air-conditioned
passenger vehicle and self-storage; ard 30,000 square feet ofnew car dealership.
Now, those uses will all be indoor within those multi-story structures. There will be no outside
storage, no outside activities. So it will lookjust like an office building or a residential building. And those
would be included within the inside. And the reason for these is to ensure that we have enough market
flexibility.
And I want to give you an example. I mentioned the Trio site right next to us. By right, they have
the ability to build residential or hotel or a combination ofthe two. They do not have to go through this
process, this zoning process. It's allowed by right.
They have an approved SDP, but they could amend that SDP and, for example, build a 150-room
hotel. Well, if they build a I 50-room hotel, there isn't going to be a market for us to build a 1 50-room hotel.
So we need the market flexibility to be able to convert uses ftom one to the other. Our intention is to go
forward with the development exactly as you see i! by righ! but we need that flexibility. Thals why we put
in the conversion matrix.
You know, there's been no investment in this area for more than 20 years. The first 20 was a decline,
then it was status quo, and now you have people stepping up to the plate to invest hundreds of millions of
dollars. The market can change at any time. We need the flexibility.
So some other, I think, important issues: We have been working with Mr. Fortino. I don't know that
we have a final agreement yet, but we'll get there. We've met with FDOT. FDOT - we have to go through
tle permifting and design process with them, but they would prefer a shared access. I'm going to show some
exhibits and give you a little more detail on dris, but we have been meeting to develop a mutually agreeable
shared access offof U.S. 4l.
We also put in a condition that staff worked with us on, County Attomey's Office worked with us on
that requires - the staffhas a trigger to ensure that before this project is through we have actually met the
minimums, and although this says 50, we have agreed to raise that to 100, the second bullet.
This is the master plan. And I do want to go over the site access, but I have a better exhibit to do that
with, and so I won't use this exhibit to show you that. But this is the master plan. As you can see, we have
C4 GTMUD-MXD adjacent to us on the east. I think the U-Haul operation is immediately adjacent to us to
the east, and then, as I said, Trio to the west right at the tip ofthe triangle. You can see that we have two
major state roads really as -- on our boundaries there.
And this is the exhibit that I would prefer to use to go over the site access. This was prepared by
Norm Trebilcock. I want to be able to - I'm so old school Im used to using that. Let's try this.
Right here. Right about here is the existing left tum into the property that is the subject of the Trio
SDP. We propose, at least preliminarily - and we don't have final agreemen! but the idea is to move that
down here creating more stacking capacity for Ieft tuming movements and then to share an entrance with
ourselves and with Trio. We don't have final design yet. We don't have a final agreement, but we are
working on that. It may end up being on the Trio property. It may end up being on the mini-triargle property.
It may end up being on both properties, but we will have, because FDOT is the permitting agency and prefers
it, shared access. That should be good for everybody, because two access points create more conflict.
As far as some of the other entr),vr'ays, as you can see -- so this would be a left-in, a right-in and a
Page 13 of 67
February 15,2018
right-out. There's a right-in/right-out here. There is a left-in, right-in/right-out here, and there is a
righrin/right-out here. So you have four means of ingress and egress on this master plan and an
interconnected internal roadway system with very adequate stacking for vehicles once they leave the
roadway.
Site signs will be important, and we will address that; direct people which way they're going to go
and what they're looking for.
There is another potential interconnection to Commercial Drive. And to the degree that we can make
that happen at some point it's certainly exciting to us because we would be able to access Commercial Drive.
I think -- actually, I think, the actual point is right here. So let me erase that.
Yeah, right here. That's the U-Haul. And so, you know, right now there's only one way in and out of
that operation. So there's a lot of benefits to this, but I don't think there are any legal ways to get there today.
It's something we'll have to work on as we move forward. I point it out because I think it's a good option
moving forward.
Let me hit that clear button. Hey. Okay.
This is a colorized rendering of our master plan. This depicts three buildings. As you know, retail
and restaurant would likely be on the first floor. Behind that would be your parking -- structured parking
access, and then moving up levels of parking, and then above that residential, hotel, offrce, those types of
USES.
The next few slides are the renderings that are in your packet. I think just maybe showing them.
This has ghosted in the proposed Trio project. It has our project and the surrounding area. I think you can
see from this that it is not out of context with the area; that you know, you could build a 112-story (sic)
building by right throughout this mini-triangle catalyst area.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So 112 feet, not story.
MR. MULHERE: What'd I say, story? Yeah, feet, thank you. Sorry. Thank you.
This is another rendering of the project as we -- as we see it moving forward. These are conceptual.
Obviously, we're still talking to potential tenants and things like that. But the idea is to make this very, very
vibrant, have a lot of activity there, have recreational types or entertainment types of activity, such as a movie
theater, to attract people and restaurants, and then some ancillary retail. The retail would only survive if there
was people there for another reason; living there or coming there, if you think about Mercato, for example.
This is much smaller. We're talking 5.3 acres here.
Another rendering by Zyscovich Architects. And then Venice Landscape Architects prepared some
renderings. I think these are really nice, but they may have also confused some folks on a few things that I
want to clarifo right now.
FDOT requires a 5- or 6-foot sidewalk. I think it's a 6-foot sidewalk on their -- you know, within
their right-of-way. We have no intention of encroaching into that in any way with dining or anything but,
moreover, our site is going to be elevated, so there will need to be a small retaining wall. So you would have
the right-of-way, the sidewalk, the retaining wall, then landscaping, then potentially some outdoor dining. So
it will be our responsibility within our own project to ensure that people can move whether they go through a
restaurant, as you're familiar with, to an outdoor dining area, or it's more of a promenade-type situation. Most
likely, if that occurs, that's going to occur in the center of the project and not on the outskirts. But there could
be some outdoor dining tlere, but it will not infringe upon those sidewalks.
If we're going to do any kind of landscaping in the right-of-way - I know staffput a condition on the
PUD that that -- that that be permitted through FDOT. And, yes, we would do that. You know, whether it's
trees in the swale portion. We don't really have any intent in doing that at this point. The landscaping would
be on our side, but it may be a good option, and it may make things look nicer, so we appreciate that staff
does not object to that as long as we get it permitted.
These are just some other perspectives of the project; conceptual. So this would be -- and I think this
is where the confusion came in, because you can see that there's a 5-foot strip there that's landscaped and then
a sidewalk. That is within the right-of-way. If we were to landscape that as a protection between the
pedestrians and the travel lane, we would get the permit from FDOT, and then you can see the dining area
there. But actually that will be elevated, so...
Page 14 of 67
February 15,2018
Another perspective. Parking structure perspective; typical; the typical perspective.
And so there are a few other things I want to go over before I conclude my portion of the
presentation and open it up to questions.
Mr. Chairman, I do have - which we can put on the visualizer -- all of the specific SIC code uses. I
know that that was discussed in several of my meetings. I have that here. I don't want to do that right now. I
imagine that will come up during the questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: YeS, it wiII.
MR. MULHERE: I wanted to point out - I hate to do this, but can I go to the visualizer for a minute.
I just wanted to point out the overlay allows a couple of buffer options, and it requires - all other
developments -- this is not in an activity center. So all other developments must provide one of the
following: A l0-foot-wide Type D buffer meeting the desigr standards in the LDC or a hardscape area
extending from the back of the street zone to the primary front facade expanding the public realm. And it
gives you a little bit of a drawing here as to what that might look like.
I mean, think on a lower volume stree! you might be able to bring the public realm right out to the
right-of-way. In this case, obviously, we have higher volumes. They're major arterial roadways. So we don't
want to -- we don't think there would be a lot of attraction for being right on top of the street, so we would
have to put some landscaping in and those types of things; however, I just did want to point out that there's a
lot of flexibility in the code, and we meet or exceed these requirements. [n fact, we exceed them, really, in all
cases.
There were some -- there were some questions regarding the sidewalk issue, which I think I have
addressed, and regarding some other traffic issues, which I want to address. Norm -- just in case he doesn't
get here, I want to get this on the record. He did provide me with some information that I want to share with
you.
Two things: There were - there were some errors in the -- they're not substantive, but there were
some elrors in the TIS. He's provided me with a corrected TIS. I have copies for you. The corrections are
highlighted in red.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would hand that out to everyone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can defmitely hand them out. I'll need it electronically. I don't
use paper, so...
MR. MULHERE: Yep. Well, we assume we're going to be back, so between now and the next time,
we'll --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to sugges! you may have -- this may cause you to have to
come back. We'll need time to digest it. I'm assuming some of that's in response to our meeting?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob,I'll want it electronically, too.
MR. MULHERE: No problem.
There were -- so you can see there's a new date on the front page in red. That's when this was
updated. It was pointed out that on Page 4, the next page, the statement read, "The gateway mini-triangle
development is an approved..." Well, that's not the case. It is proposed. So that's corrected.
A minor correction on Page 5, very minor. And then a change on Page 13 to clarifr the statement
that was confusing, a parenthetical statement there about proposed dual left directional median. It's proposed
dual opposing single left directional median. So these were either confusion or corrections that were pointed
out, and Norm did update the TIS. I mean, we can get into the specifics either shortly or hopefully when he
arrives or, if it's not today, then when we come back.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: What time do you expect him to arrive? I mean, I'd rather not waste time
asking you things that you're not the expeft on.
MR. MULHERE: I don't - thank you.
I don't expect him to arrive until - his meeting is at I l. It should last a half an hour so, you know,
then he's got to get over here. He's at the county, but I'm not sure if it's on this campus or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob?
Page 15 of67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Stan?
COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Could somebody from staffexplainto me what an - what a
proposed dual single --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can that wait till we get to the finish of the presentation?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's left-tum lanes going in both directions; opposed dual left turn lanes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Do you have a -- when we get -- are you done with your presentation?
MR. MULIIERE: No, I have just a couple --
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish up. And when we get to that, it would be nice if you had a
graphic to show us what that means, because I can't understand what you just said, and that's probably why
Stan --
MR. MULI{ERE: I'll give it a shot. I do have a graphic. I think it's shown on Norm's aerial.
So there were some questions raised by the city. I'm not sure what Greg's title is there. If he's the
civil -- city engineer. He basically runs the Public Works Department there. I wanted to just discuss a few of
those.
Item 1 was that there were - and this project was distributed to the city for their review at the same
time as it was distributed 15 months ago to -- or 14 months ago to the county staff. There are concerns as
to - and these comments are dated2l5ll8.
There were concerns as to the density of the project and haffic impacts particularly upon U.S. 41. I
think you-all have this, so I'm not going to read it. It basically says, the city urges the county to apply a
conservative approach to traffic analysis, and we believe we have done exactly that.
We use a capfure ratio that's very conservative. It's dictated by the counf, intemal capture.
I'm going to read Norm's response. He says, these concerns are understandable. We cerLainly aren't
going to introduce a different method of analyzing traffic that is inconsistent with the current county adopted
methodologies, just as the city wouldn't expect somebody to use a different methodology than they have
adopted.
The transpoftation analysis performed for the project is consistent with those counff standards. I
point out to you, by the way, this is in a TCEA, fansportation concurency exception area, so it's exempt
from consistency. But that doesn't matter. We still don't trigger any LOS issues.
The other item was related to the sidewalks. I think that concem was a very -- you know, a good
question, and we have no intent of, in any way, interfering with or reducing the width that's required for the
FDOT sidewalk with any of our activities. It will be separated.
One question was regarding right turn lanes and a bus pull-ofi and we analyzed -- we will go
through the FDOT permitting process. We haven't gone through that. We haven't met with them. Initial
traffrc analysis shows that turn lanes are not warranted, and we've met with the Collier County transit stafi
and we are providing a bus stop, and then there was the relocation of another bus stop, but those do not
include pull-offs. It's a 5.3-acre site, and we can't give up that. They haven't been requested either, and
they're not even warranted by the numbers.
And, you know, I know, myself, I travel down U.S. 41, and I am stopped behind CAT buses because
I'm driving nice and slow in the right lane, and I wait for CAT buses all the time, and so does everyone else.
It's part of having a transit system.
So I think - Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience with that presentation. It's a really significant
projec! and I wanted to take the time to try to go over everl.thing, and now I would open it up to questions.
And I do have experts here, plus my client is here to speak to you, anything, you know, that you might raise
that you feel like you maybe want to hear from him on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just so the public knows, we will be taking a break at 10:30 for
15 minutes for the court reporter. We generally break at noon for one hour. Public speakers will be after the
staffreport and after the presentation. During the meantime, the Planning Commission will be asking
questions of the applicant and staffas needed.
And then for the Planning Commission, we have three items we're reviewing today. First one is
GMP, second is PUD, and the third is an LDC.
Page 16 of 67
February 15,2018
We can just randomly ask questions about all of them, or we can go through those documents in that
order and ask our questions from each document first. Does anybody on this board have a preference?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Each document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I haven't segregated my questions by subject matter. I've got them
generally together.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've mixed up the questions from the first document with the
second and the third? You don't have them -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've sorted them by topic.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, Iet's see if - okay. Well, we'll just ask questions then.
Does -- who would like to start? Anybody?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bob, could you please tell me, this site will have no outdoor parking; is
that correct?
MR. MULHERE: No. There will be very minimal, but within the right-of-way, we've sized those
intemal drives. We've sized those wide enough to have some parallel parking similar to Bayside, if you've
been there. Im not sure if that's the name of it. There's a development in downtown Naples. It's right on the
water as you head into the Naples on the right-hand side. It has a hotel and some restaurants and a couple
of - that has -- it's the same thing, parallel parking along the right-of-way. We've sized those wide
enough -- it will be minimal amount of the parking. Almost all of the parking will be in-structure parking.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, you mentioned a car dealership or something, and that
was going to be inside.
MR. MULHERE: That will be, yes. No storage, no display outside.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So no parking outside with that?
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have several. I'll finish up with the most significant ones.
First of all, with regard to peak p.m. trips, I understand that the area is exempt from the usual
considerations and limitations. Also, I see that even if it were not exempq you are within allowed capacity.
I am concerned, though -- and I'm not really sure anything can be done about it, but I want to express
my concem anyway, tlrat another 875 peak p.m. trips is going to really add traffic to the two streets in
question.
And what opportunities does that leave for subsequent developments given that the mini-triangle is
to be the primary catalyst, if you will, for much more to come? And I note that there are no plans in place for
widening either of those streets, which I think is a shame. I'm not sure if this is a question or a comment,
but --
MR. MULHERE: No, it's -- I mean, I'll respond in a couple of ways. The -- because this is in a
TCEA beyond just our property, quite a bit of the property here within the larger triangle, that's -- those have
been deemed to be constrained, that improvements such as widening the roadway are cost prohibitive.
They're not going to happen. So some level of congestion is going to be acceptable.
The subsequent developments that come in here, you know, they all have right now a number of trips
that they either are generating or could be generating under the existing zoning by right never coming before
any public hearing body, and that's pretty substantial. And so that's evaluated and measured.
You know, it's interesting because there are locations where there are considerations right now being
studied potentially for reducing arterial roadway, U.S. 41 in the City of Naples just east of you know, Fifth
Avenue where you turn sharp right to head north. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but that's one of the
considerations is to take that down to four lanes and put some parking there and slow the traffic down. That
PagelT of67
February 15,2018
will reduce capacity. It will slow traffrc.
We're not proposing that. Obviously, I don't think the State would like that in this location. These
both have pretty high -- pretty easy flow right now. There used to be a fast-food restaurant and a bunch of
other things on some of these properties, so...
So I guess my response is that there's competing interests here, and on the one hand you have a CRA
that's invested ad valorem tax dollars, a tax increment, into improving this area by creating a stormwater
pond, by making roadway improvements, and you know they've done the same thing along Bayshore, with
the intent being to see this area improved and to see this area generate new development, new economic
investment.
And so that interest competes with the interest of, hey, that's going to require some additional trips on
the roadway. We're going to create some traffrc.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't expect that you would have a solution to the problem --
MR. MULFDRE: I don't.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- but I wanted to express a concern because the objective here on the
part of the county, I believe, is to, in effect, make this part of East Naples, the premiere -- the premiere city, if
you will, or focal point for activities in the unincorporated county.
Well, my next question had to do with the minimum, and I appreciate you having raised the proposed
number from 50 dwelling units to 100. I would like to see even more than that because some of my concerns
when I get to the subject of allowable commercial uses, as a practical matter, I think go away or at least are
less to be feared if there is more residential occupancy in that area. And I, for one, would like to see 150
dwelling units as a minimum.
My next -- my next concem, I had communications with representatives of Olde Naples Association,
which is the large neighborhood association representing the residential part of the Olde Naples area, the
downtown area included.
And their concern -- and, again, Bob, this may not be anything that you can do. Well, it isn't
anything you can do about it, but it needs to be expressed because these concerns were expressed to me, and I
know there are people watching TV now from Naples who would like to see how my question is answered,
and that has to do with this: Granted, the actual height of the buildings will be lower than the communications
tower that's there. That's a good thing. But the potential exposure for disaster is much larger.
A plane hits the tower; obviously, there could be terrible, terrible mass casualty things happening.
But if a plane hits an occupied building, it could be in an order of magnitude of huge multiples of casualties.
And my fear is is that the Naples Airport Authority, in order to, perhaps, address that concem, might
be seeking to route landings and takeoffs more over the area of Olde Naples on the west, and that's a very real
concern that's been expressed to me by the residents of Olde Naples.
So my question to you really is, in your discussions -- and I've seen the FAA letter, and I've seen the
Naples Airport Authority letter, and there are no hazards that are going to cause them to take action against
this development. I understand and appreciate that. But I want to ask you if in the course of your discussions
with those authorities any statements were made that could reasonably be interpreted as a sign or signal on
their part that they're going to move airport, the landing and takeofftraffic, over toward the west.
MR. MULHERE: So I wasn't privilege to -- I think Mr. Starkey would come up and speak to that
issue relative to the FAA. Some folks on my staffwho are airport experts helped to initiate the application
and foster the application through the process.
I was at several meetings with the Naples Airport Authority, and in those meetings I never heard any
discussion about this project which is not within the flight patterns, changing in any way the nature of how
the airport operates and how planes will land there.
As another observation, you know, it is a larger structure than the towers, but it's also much more
visible than the towers, which has all of the requirements for lighting and FAA protection and safety
mechanisms associated wittr it. So just as a separate issue, not directly related to what you asked.
I never heard anything. I don't know if you want to say any,thing. No?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, that answers my question.
Now, to the one that gives me greatest amount of heartburn, if you will, and that has to do with the
Page 18 of67
February 15,2018
other allowable commercial uses.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And in our discussions yesterday on the phone, Bob, you used the
expression "high-end first class," which, I think, certainly capfures your client's intentions, which I take as
being expressed in good faith and sincere.
We share those intentions, I believe, on the county side of the table wanting this area to be the very
best it can be and to achieve the goal of being a catalyst and of being a point of attraction for other
developments and something that will really improve that very important part of unincorporated Collier
County and also significant importance to the residents of the City of Naples, because we're very close
neighbors, and it will almost have a feel like tle same downtown area of flow, which can be a very good
thing, but it also brings more people into the mix who are concerned about taking steps to assure that we
achieve high-end first-class. And how is that to be accomplished? That's the challenge.
One thing we can do - and we talked about this - is go through each and every proposed use and see
if we can't narrow or impose qualitative limits of some kind on those uses. And at the end of the day, that
may be the only way we can get to where we want to get.
I had hoped -- because I understand the importance on your part and on the part of your clients of
having flexibility, but I don't want to offload all of the risk of, Iet's say, a downtum on the economy and then
what might happen or have to happen with respect to who the tenants or the occupants are of your area as a
result of an unforeseen downtum. I think the risks should be shared, and one way of sharing it is, frankly, to
narrow the scope of allowable commercial uses to something that even in the worst-case scenario we can
expect, shall we say, high-quality type of commercial uses as opposed to -- and I'm not going to mention any
names, for example, but I think we all know the kinds ofthings I'm talking about that we would hate to see
come in.
So I struggled for language. You know, you had used the expression high-end first-class, which I
liked, but we both agreed in our telephone conversation that that's not necessarily capable of precise
definition or what exactly -- that's in the eyes of the beholder.
So I'm willing to either talk about limiting language that expresses the imagination of your client and
the imagination of the people planning and managing and governing the County of Collier as to what they're
trying to do here and to protect the county from absorbing all the risk of a downturn in the market.
MR. MULHERE: So, a couple of, I think, thoughts in response. And, you know, yeah, about 3
o'clock last night I was thinking about this, your question on this, and there's a difference between
regulatory - and I know you appreciate this. I mean, I'm just -- there's a difference between how you
structure something from a regulatory perspective and then what is the intent.
You know, some -- like, for example, all the zoning districts have - in the LDC have a purpose and
intent section. And it's probably more difficult to use a purpose and intent section to -- you know, to drive
some sort of regulatory restrictions. You really want to go sort of beyond that, I think. And so the next step
is you list uses or you have, you know, hours of operation or you have other specific restrictions that drive
that purpose and intent.
I think we did prepare what I call the vision, purpose, and intent. I think that can be used as a means
of moving down the life of this project measuring, is this project consistent with the vision, purpose, and
intent. I think that can be done, but it's not specific. And, again, it is in the eyes of the beholder.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: True. And I'm not sure --
MR. MULHERE: I prepared -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that as precatory language it would really have the effect of
limiting --
MR. MULHERE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- expression of the uses.
Now, you provided me with a copy of the desired uses, which I think is a step in the right direction,
and I believe that can be circulated to the Planning Commission.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe it would be easier for us if we were to say that rather than all
Page 19 of67
February 15,2018
the uses in Cl through C4 and having to go through : I know there's 96 n C3 because we had that recently.
MR. MULIIERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rather than going through that, perhaps we would go through the
tailored-down list that you've provided -
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and go at each one of those items. I will say, though, that I'm going
to -- I'm going to have the same kinds of objections to the catch-all language -
MR. MULIIERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- the so-called 99 codes -
MR. MULIIERE: I got it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and would like to see those things taken out.
MR. MULHERE: I have them all. Let me just respond in one other --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, one question. Are you asking for all the uses of C3 andC4?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're only looking at the uses that you have in your document
that you're requesting under principal uses, which is IB I and 2 and 3.
MR. MULffiRE: What I was going to say was we've already pared this down quite a bit.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULI{ERE: I'm not suggesting there aren't some uses here that we don't anticipate a market
for or that in someone's perspective -- from someone's perspective there may not be a use here that's
objectionable.
And I brought a list. It's not that long. I mean, it's certainly up to the Planning Commission. I'm very
huppy to look at those uses.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My hope would be that rather than start with the uses that are permitted
under current zoning, current commercial zonitg, we agree that the uses will include -- well, will be limited
to the ones on the list you've provided as we continue to negotiate to pare that down even fuither --
MR. MULffiRE: And they are.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- so that things that are not specified are not permissible.
MR. MULFDRE: And that's the way it is.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Except for the 99s where it "or anything that's soft of like this."
MR. MULIIERE: Yes. But even any one of these codes -- so let me just give you an example, if I
could, for just one minute.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why don't we hand it out to the Planning Commission.
MR. MULffiRE: I didn't bring enough copies to hand it out, so I was going to put it on the
visualizer.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I provided some. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's fine. I'm just a little confused, though. We are not - they are not asking
forthe C3 and C4 uses. They're asking for a very specific list of uses. And is that the list we're dealing with?
Because there's no sense of going into all the C3 andC4 when you're not even asking for those. So is this list
pared down to just what's in the document in front of us today, which is all you're asking for, and then going
to pare that down further?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think they want the continued overlay uses.
CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Bob, show me where that says that.
MR. MULIIERE: No, no, not the uses. No, we're limited to these uses. The overlay is for
development standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're --
MR. MULffiRE: We are limited to the uses here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that clarified in the ordinance?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is.
Heidi, do you want to opine?
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: It's on Exhibit A first page. There's -- all the uses that they're specifically
Page 20 of 67
February 15,2018
asking for are listed there, but there are ranges. So I thought you were getting at uses that are within the
ranges that you're objecting to --
MR. MULHERE: He is.
CI{AIRMAN STRAN: - but it sounds like we're looking at a much broader picture they're not
asking for.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I want to -- I want to shift the presumption from -- and I'm
thinking of the 99 uses in the SIC code, the ones that end in - the four digits that end in 99, andyou'll see this
when it's handed out.
These are the uses that they're asking for that they're proposing already some to be tailored back, and
in many cases I think that's very much a step in the right direction. But I think if we can look at this and
remove the catch-all provision so that we know exactly what the uses are that are going to be permitted, I
think we're in better shape than where we are now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was -- from what you were saying, though, it sounded like you
were going to start with the C3 and C4 uses. That's not what they're asking for. So as long as we're paring
down what you've already requested and we're looking at those, I think that's a good starting point. There's
no sense of going into something you're not even asking for.
MR. MULI{ERE: No. We are limited to the - very limited to expressly those uses and those
limitations in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I misunderstood somewhat because of your wanting to retain all the
uses under the mixed use. And I looked pretty carefully at this language, and I didn't find - maybe it was
there, but I didn't see a clear statement that that's not being asked for.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way the code's written, if it's not allowed, it's prohibited. What
this zoning would do is allow specifically the uses they're asking for in this document, and the other use is not
prohibited once this is done. And --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Except for the catch-alls that we're going to talk about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The catch-alls are listed. So if we change the catch-alls, then the
changeswouldnotbeallowedanymore. ButrightnowthoseTggs-llke7999,5999,thereareafewofthem
that are catch-alls. And I agree with you, those are the ones that have got all kinds of uses to them. I've
pulled the code out and looked at every single one of them. Some of them, they are pretty dramatic. And it's
a good thing we're going through this exercise. But we're not starting, though, at C3 and C4. They've already
dismissed that as the overall picture. They're going down just what's in this document. Is that right or wrong,
Bob?
MR. MULHERE: So just clearly -- I want to put on the record --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: All right.
MR. MULI{ERE: -- the only uses that we're asking for are those uses expressly identified in this
document.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well - then the only thing I'm going to say is - and I read this stuff
pretty clearly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there -- is it clear in the proposed ordinance and the exhibits that the
overlay uses that are -- that any overlay uses that are permitted in the overlay but not expressed here are not
permitted?
MS. ASI{ION-CICKO: Yeah. The uses that are allowed -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Your mike's not picking up. There. Now it is.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Too much high tech for me.
The uses that are permitted are the uses that are listed with the SIC code reference after it; however,
you do need to look at the SIC codes because sometimes it can pull in uses that you might not have realized.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, and that's the 99s, okay. So you're satisfied -
MS. ASIilON-CICKO: Like, this is the SIC codes forthis case. I mean, it's a lot of pages.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was going to ask that you disconnect yourself from all the mixed uses
in the overlay.
Page?l of 67
February 15,2018
MR. MULI{ERE: We are only asking for these uses.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: So I have the list. It's not -- I mean, I see that Heidi has about 50 pages there. I
printed every single use. I didn't print every single sub-use, but I did print all of the 99 uses. So I think we
could -- if we spend a few minutes, we could probably go through this pretly quickly. My list is very similar
to your list, if not the same.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULI{ERE: I don't know how you want to do that, Mr. Chairman. I mean, if you want to do it
now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys - just start from the beginning of the list. Let's see if we can get
through this part of it. Well, we're going to take a break in -- you know what let's take a break now before
we start on this list so we're not intemrpting the middle of it, and we'll come back at 20 minutes to I l; 10:40.
A brief recess was had.)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, it's 10:40. We'll resume the meeting. And, Ray, thank
you for turning the microphone on.
And we left offwith a discussion by M.. Mulhere and Mr. Fryer concerning the SIC codes and the
list that was passed out earlier. And, Bob - by the way, when this is all finished, again, could you provide
electronic copies of this list? Because it's not something I will keep.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. And I'll let you two guys go to wherever you were going to go.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So I've got the PUD document in my hands here, and then I've got a list
that I've prepared, which I'm sure is similar to the list that Mr. Fryer prepared. But if there's any discrepancies
we can certainly talk about those. And I think -- but you can correct me. I think the easiest way is to go
down this list of uses. If there's something that's objectionable and it's allowed by the PIID, we can have that
discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Let's just start working our way down. Ned, is that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, absolutely.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So the first list of SIC codes that's allowed in the PUD is 531 1 through
5399. Those uses are right here: Department stores, variety stores, miscellaneous, general merchandise
stores.
You know, if I can use an example, Nordstrom's Raclg Neiman Marcus. I think that was on your list.
It would not be - and the way things are going, as far as I can tell, we're not going to see a whole lot of very
large brick and mortar retail. You are going to see, potentially, some of these smaller specialty type stores that
still seem to be surviving suffrciently.
So I wouldn't think those would be objectionable, but I'll defer to your comments.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, one concem I would have is the breadth of 5399.
MR. MULI{ERE: Let me take a look.
MS. ASIIION-CICKO: Bob, would you like me to give you the SIC code page so you can put it
up?
MR. MULI{ERE: I think we might have them here. I'm looking, because I - I do not have all
the -- yeah, I guess so. Yes, thank you. I must have not thought it was very broad.
Okay. Oh, yeah. That's why. I didn't put it up because -- I'm sorry. This is the extent of 5399,
which is catalog showrooms; country general stores retail. Don't think we'll have one of those there; general
merchandise stores retail; and general stores retail. So I didn't really see that those were objectionable. That's
not one of the larger catch-alls. It's pretly limited.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULFIERE: So ifwe -- moving along, andthe next is -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a long list. So to expedite il why don't we just move by group. And
if someone has a concern, we'll just speak out, and then we'll go from there.
MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather get - otherwise, we're going to be here for hours going over this.
Page22 of 67
February 15,2018
MR. MULFDRE: No, I got it. So 5411 through 5499 is this group right here. We do see and have
had conversations with several entities that would potentially bring in 4 you know, l5- to 25,000-square-foot
specialty kind of retailer. There are examples out there; Wholefoods, Amazon is doing this kind of stuff.
There are -- so there are examples of that. Whether it happens or not, I don't know, but we don't want to
preclude it from happening.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have a problem with that.
MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. The next one is 5611 through 6599. I mean, you know, these SIC codes
are a little bit antiquated in the way that they read men's and boys' clothing. I don't think you're going to see
any'thing that only specializes in men's and boys' clothing. You might have a clothing store that has men's
and boys'clothing and ladies clothing and men's, you know, so I think -- a shoe store, you could have an
upscale, you know, shoe store. Again, I don't think there's anything objectionable there.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess it's clear that accessory stores -- it's implied that those are
clothing accessories.
MR. MULFDRE: Yes, because it falls under that SIC code.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULIIERE: And then the next groupingis 5712, and we allow -- we allow in our PUD 5712
through 5736, so you have musical instrument stores. I don't think you're going to see too many recorded and
prerecorded tape stores coming in -- but computer and computer software, consumer electronics, you could
see, you know, a high-end -- I mean, it's possible to have one of those high-end kind of electronics stores.
The name of it is escaping me now, but there are several.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob, may I ask a question that's related to this and would help allay my
concems to a degree? You mentioned that there aren't going to be any outdoor uses.
MR. MULHERE: Otherthan dining.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULFIRE: You know, so restaurant might have - will. We will have some outdoor seating.
It's Florida.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But other than dining uses --
MR. MULHERE: You're talking about storage? No. No outdoor storage. We didn't ask forthat.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No retail outdoor?
MR. MULI{ERE: I mean, they may put a rack out for a special sidewalk sale or something, but
that's typical. You know, you get a special permit for that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We will need to clean the PUD up, because there is outdoor storage ability
without the prohibition, and there is language in there for temporary storage of merchandise.
MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm talking about; sidewalk sales and things like tha! yeah.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I think they can, under the way the language is written, and I think
maybe this is what they're intending, is, like, they could put an automobile out like they do at Mercato.
MR. MULHERE: Special event.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But there also is an ability -- because in C4 automobile sales does allow for
outdoor storage, so we want to seal that so that they don't do outdoor storage. So we can address that in the
PUD.
MR. MULHERE: fught. I don't have a problem with that. I thought we already addressed iq but I
don't have a problem if it needs to be clarified.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: The more -- I can achieve comfort that when we drive by this
development it's going to look, you know, essentially or close to some of the drawings of the images that
you've offered, the glass stufl so that you really don't know what's going on inside.
MR. MULFDRE: Yes. I got it. And we don't think that the residents or guests would want to see,
you know, a lot of that kind of stuffeither.
So, for example, we have -- on the new car dealership we have limited to an interior showroom
display and so - but we could clarifu that. I don't have a problem with that. I mean, we can make sure that
it's understood what our intent is, which that is our intent.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, yeah. So a broad -- a broader prohibitions against outdoor
Page 23 of 67
February 15,2018
activities other than as specified?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm making a note right now.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. I'm sorry I intemrpted you.
MR. MULHERE: No, that's okay. I've got to make a note or I --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: So moving along. The question was that we're not talking about special events,
and I just assured, no, we're talking about sort of a permanent outdoor storage.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Occasional events.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, they're regulated. It's regulated. There's a whole section of the code
that regulates it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah.
MR. MULFDRE: Okay. The next grouping is 5912 through 5999, and that includes --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's a proprietary store?
MR. MULHERE: I don'tknow, Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Neither do I.
MR. MULHERE: So we only asked for 5912,5921r.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you'll put language in there limiting it to - as associated with
grocery stores?
MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah. The liquor store?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We don't need a free-standing liquor store. If we need to clariff that to
make sure that we say liquor store associated with a, you know, grocery store, we can do that. It would be an
accessory use. I don't know if we even have to say that.
Ray, Publix comes in for an accessory liquor store, that's permitted kind of by righg isn't it? It's not a
free-standing liquor store.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Forthe record, Ray Bellows. Any primary use that has accessory package
store, that would have to be qualified. The zoning district allows for the package store.
MR. MULFIERE: Okay. So we'll do that. We'll make that change.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the 59s?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you may have to help me where you got this from. Under the
5912,5921, where does 5932 come up in your list?
MR. MULHERE: It's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So you're not asking for that?
MR. MULHERE: Which is that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Third one down.
MR. MULIDRE: That's used merchandise stores?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Now, what list - keep going to the top; 5932. I can't see the top.
Could you pull it down. There you go.
MR. MULHERE: Oh,I'm sorry,.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5932 doesn't seem to be --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not on the exhibit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why are we - why is it -
MR. MULHERE: I'm not talking about that. No, we were talking about liquor stores.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: I know that. Isn't this - the SIC codes we're going over now, isn't this
supposed to be the list that you're asking for or not?
MR. MULHERE: No. What I'm doing - let me clarifu. What I'm doing is I am limiting my
discussion only to those uses we're asking for, but this is the full list here. I didn't --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why did we have - why'd you give us the full list?
MR. MULHERE: Okav. We can --
Page 24 of 67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why don't we just focus on what you're asking for and save some time?
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I'm trying to do. Im not going over every list. I'm only going
over the ones we asked for. I'm only --
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: How are we supposed to know by this list which ones you're asking for?
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to tell you. I've got the numbers right here in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. I knowthat but
MR. MULIIERE: I don't have any other way to do it unless you want to use Mr. Fryer's list, which
is fine by me.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: All I'm suggesting is if you're only asking for 5912, 5921,5941through 48,
and 5992-99, those should be the only ones on this list, because when this list gets done, isn't this the list that
you're adopting for the PUD? I mean, based on the ranges, but I mean, this is a list -
MR. MULI{ERE: We're only going to include those uses that you agree we should include.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULI{ERE: But, looh I wasn't as efficient as you would have been. I simply downloaded the
entire Iisl and I didn't then, go in and delete the uses we're not asking for -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But as the Chairman said -
MR. MULI{ERE: - at6:45lastnight.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- you've got5949, and then you're saying, tailor okay, but 5949 is not
on your - in the exhibit.
MR. MULI{ERE: Correct. I can just let you know -- I got it right here. So, in the 59s, we've asked
for 5912; that's drugstore. We've asked for 5921;that is the liquor store. We've agreed to limit that to only
accessory. And we're asking for 5941 through 5948, so let's go to that; 5941 through 5948. Those are
sporting goods stores, bookstores, stationery stores, jewelry stores. None of those should be objectionable, I
wouldn't think, correct?
So moving on. We've also asked for 5992 through 5999. So 5992 is floris! tobacco stores, news,
optical stores, and then you've got your miscellaneous.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ninety-three's out?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're asking for them. It's 5992range to --
COMMISSIONERFRYER: It says no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on here, yeah, but, I mean, in the PUD they're asking for it.
MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah. We just asked for the range.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're out of the range. You're going to except out 5993? I think
that's what Ned's --
MR. MULI{ERE: Well, I mean, you could have a cigar store. Is there -- you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's tle "no" mean? Who put that ttrere?
MR. MULHERE: I don't see -- I'm not sure --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On yours - okay. Maybe if we all would use the page that you passed out.
The one that you passed out has the word "no."
MR. MULHERE: Oh, that would have been Mr. Fryer probably put that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no, no, I didn't. I absolutely did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. The author -- who's the author of this document? Ned. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NO?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, someone put "no" on here. I didn't. It just came typed.
MR. MULI{ERE: It's not my document.
MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner Fryer, I believe that was yours. I believe that was the one I
distributed, which was given --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I forwarded it to you from Bob or, actually, it was from Mr.
Starkey.
MR. MULffiRE: This is my list right here.
Page 25 of 67
February 15,2018
COMMISSIONER FRYER: This was from Mr. Starkey.
MR. STARKEY: I sent it to you.
MR. MULIIERE: Oh, you had those on there. Okay. I didn't know that that was distributed. That
answers that question.
CH{IRMAN STRAN: It is now, so...
MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. Let's just - if you don't care, we'll take it out. I had no idea that that
was -- so we're saying that the tobacco can come out, right? Okay. Shall we move on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm anxious to.
MR. MULFDRE: SIC Code 7933, we only ask for those uses, and you can see on this one I did only
add the uses that we asked for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the one you passed out said, okay, new boutique bowling dash F and B
centric. What does that mean?
MR. MULHERE: Does anyone mind if we retain -- does anyone mind if - I'm a little confused and
frustrated because I didn't know that you-all had something that has nos and yeses on it. I'm, you know -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just was passed out while you were standing there, Bob. That's the
problem.
MR. MULIIERE: I'm using my list I was prepared to go over.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have nine copies of your list or six or -
MR. MULHERE: No. I thought we'd put it on the visualizer.
So anyway tobacco -- excuse me, 59 -- I'm looking for it. Oh, yeah, 5993, tobacco stores. We may
want to have, for example, an upscale cigar shop like Burn or something like that that's up in the Mercato.
We don't want to eliminate that use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why you would.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Moving on.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to clarif, who wrote the word "no."
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I think Jerry did when he - Jerry Starkey.
MR. STARKEY: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the -- if you're going to speak, Jerry, unfortunately you've
got to come up to the mike. So, Bob, can you answer that question.
MR. MULHERE: I'll do it. Yeah. These notes were added to the list by Mr. Starkey, which he sent
to me, maybe copied you. I didn't even look at this because I was busy working on my own list until into the
evening last night. So -- because I intended to go over this list just like this. I thought it was the most
efficient way to do it. Go over the list, only discuss the ones that are in the PUD, and move through it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we're to ignore the word "no," for instance, in the 5980.
MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah, those were -- I guess those were just his own notes. I didn't -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, they're not asking for the 5980s at all, so they don't get any of those
anyway. They're not in the PUD.
MR. MULI{ERE: Correct. I'm only focusing on the ones we're asking for.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think you might want to disregard the handout and
just go from what he's presenting on the visualizer.
MR. MULHERE: It would be easier.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's fine. We just don't have a copy of it;that's all.
MR. MULHERE: We can make copies, or we can come back prepared with copies. I'd just as soon
we use the visualizer. Everyone can see that. Everyone in the public can see that.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I still want to know what a proprietary store is, but...
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's a store that someone owns.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know. I'm going to have to look that up and report back to you.
So as I was saying, our PUD in the 7900 SIC code is limited to bowling centers, physical fitness
facilities, and7999 is a catchall. There are many uses listed under that. We are only asking for -- and there
may be some discussion on this. We are only asking for yoga instruction or some similar kind of exercise
facility that would fall under that.
Page26 of 67
February 15,2018
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That bullet is meant to be a subset or a modifier --
MR. MULI{ERE: It is a modifier. It's in the PUD that way, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULI{ERE: And so -- and bicycle rental.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Bob, I take exception to the indoor shooting range. All that's going to do is
encourage people to travel on our streets with guns to get to and from this place. And, honestly, I'm not
against the Second Amendment at all, but I don't think we need people running up and down six-lane arterials
with guns, so...
MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. Done. And we're all extremely sensitive to that, too, on a day like this, so,
yeah.
Moving on. 611 1, the 6000 range. I'm looking for what's permitted. Okay. Here we go. Those are
personal and financial services. So you can see what those are: Credit agencies, credit, banks, those kinds of
things. Again, I wouldn't think that any of that -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: What about payday loans?
MR. MULI{ERE: Which item is that?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be underthe 99.
MR. MULIIERE: We - let me just look for a minute.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: One that had the banks on it. It's not on the screen.
MR. MULHERE: 6399?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I can't see it because it's offthe screen.
MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. Hold on.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: 6 I 59.
MR. MULHERE: 6159, miscellaneous business credit institutions. I mean, we don't -- we're not
going to have payday loans, like a check cashing place?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah.
MR. MULFDRE: We don't need that.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why don't you just limit it to banks and investment managers like Jerry's
document said, that we shouldn't have gotten.
MR. MULI{ERE: Okay. I got it.
Okay. So the next one is the 6200s. Those are security brokers and dealers, commodity contract
brokers. These are really all professional offrce, these uses.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: 6200's not on the screen. There we go.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I'm looking down here. I can see it and you can't. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Again, those are all professional office uses.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's a flotation company?
MR. MULHERE: Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I got a personal flotation device, but I doubt if I'd buy it
there.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. I don't think. I guess it probably has something to do with loans.
6300 is insurance-related activities, title insurance, pension, health, insurance carriers, accidental health
insurance. I mean, they're all kind of carried by different providers. It's office use.
6400 is insurance agents and brokers. Why that's different from above, I don't know.
Garment press -- oh,6411. So I wouldn't think there would be any problem. That's all professional
office type uses and then, ['m sorry, going to the 7200s, the PUD allows three uses, 7212 --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: 7212, garment pressing?
MR. MULIfiRE: That's what I'm getting at. I'm on that. The PUD allows three uses: 7212,7231,
and1241. Those are listed right here. This is a dry cleaner. That is what that is. It is not - it is
limited -- you're an agent of a laundry or dry cleaner. In other words, you've got - you know that little dry
cleaners that we see all over town? That's what that is.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it that, or is it the place where those little dry cleaners send the
Page27 of67
February 15,2018
clothes on a larger scale?
MR. MULIIERE: Well, my intent was for this to allow a dry cleaner. I'll check that one. I'll make a
note and make sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULI{ERE: Yep. I think that's accurate, that it is a dry cleaner, but I will check and make sure
when we come back. The other two are, you know, beauty salon and barbershop.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: How are we creating a list for ourselves when this comes back on
consent?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, first of all, it may not be just consent it will need to come back for.
And I'm probably going to suggest that the applicant, if they would so agree --
MR. MULI{ERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- by the time we get done today, if more clarity is needed than we normally
see on consent, why don't we wrap both the consent and a final reading of this up in the next meeting, if
you-all see that as a way to maybe solve some of the issues that are coming up. So that would solve it. By
then we'd have a list that Bob would refine based on the info we're giving him today.
MR. MULHERE,: Yes. Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have anlthing to check it against.
MR. M[ILI{ERE: Well, I mean, I'm going to refine -- I'll refine the PUD, and I'll provide a refured
list of SIC code numbers.
CTIAIRMAN STRAN: And then we have them in time to review them against the next meeting.
Even if we don't discuss them today, I think we'll see the hot buttons that might have concemed us.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So the next group is 7300. Those are all typical office uses. In today's day
and age, I couldn't imagine there would be any issue with those. Moving on --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Retrieval, is that like computer servers, databases?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's using computers to retrieve information. Yeah. It should all be out of
an office with a bank of computers.
Moving on, 801I is doctors and offices and clinics. And let me move that down. Sorry. Dentists,
various chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists. I mean, we have 60,000 square feet of office. If we're going
to fill any of that, we certainly need to have doctors' offices.
Typically those laboratories are -- these days many of times they are accessory to the doctor's office.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, Bob. Just curiosity, why are they so specific on things
like chiropractors and optometrists, and they don't mention ophthalmologists and urologists and whatever?
MR. MULHERE: That's a good question. I don't know why.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why don't they just say doctors?
MR. MULI{ERE: Well, I agree, or medical doctors or specialty doctors.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, medical, yeah.
MR. MULI{ERE: I mean, just as an observation, we have adopted - I don't know how long, Mark,
this SIC code. A longtime.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an '87 version, and if you look at NAICS, you'll see it's broken down
completely differently. And we have not yet adopted the new system.
MR. MULI{ERE: And that's what I was --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does this mean you can't put a urologist ofhce in there?
MR. MULI{ERE: No, you can, because Ray will let you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh. I'll tell Dr. Guttman. Thank you.
MR. MULI{ERE: Here's one that may be objectionable. I don't know. 8111; 811l,legal services.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Depends on what attomeys you're putting in there, Bob. I think --
MR. MULHERE: Okay. 8600 series is business associations, professional membership
organizations, labor union. We don't have to worry about that, I don't think, down here.
Page 28 of 67
February 15, 2018
Civic, social, and fratemal associations, political organizations, religious organizations, membership
organizations. Again, you know, whatever of those uses comes forward, it's going to be fully within an
enclosed multi-story building. It's going to look like an office; it's going to act like an office. So, I don't
even -- let me tell you what we asked for and make sure, because I don't know that we asked for all of those.
Let's see.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, you did.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So if there's something objectionable, just -- we can talk about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there an overriding ordinance that deals with sexual activities?
MR. MULIIERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because sometimes I see that it's actually called out.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: SOB ordinance.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Ray Bellows. Collier County has, as part of adopted regulations,
an ordinance dealing with sexually oriented businesses, and it has locational standards.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It has locational standards. Would this location fall within
those standards?
MR. MULI{ERE: We'd have to check. But if the PUD doesn't allow for the use, then it doesn't
allow for the use either.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, but, I mean, you've got some -- you've got some fairly broad uses
that are not so qualified. Maybe we should put in that the prohibition about sexually, whatever the expression
is.
MR. MULIIERE: Well, there's a definition in the sexually oriented. The SOB ordinance, as it's
affectionately referred to as, there is a definition. I would defer to the County Attomey, but we certainly
could -- we don't mind putting in a prohibition or limitation. You know, there are constitutional issues here,
so I don't want to get into that. Ive got to defer to the lawyers on that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd just like to know what the language is.
MS. ASHION-CICKO: We have prohibited it in the past. We can add a prohibition for --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can't hear you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We can add a prohibition for sexually oriented businesses as defined in our
ordinances.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was broader than tha! as I recall. It was a two-pronged test that
we've actually put in other developments.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just for no sexually oriented sales and --
MS. ASIIION-CICKO: No. We just did a reference to sexually oriented business ordinance. That's
how we handled the U.S. 41 that just went through.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right.
MR. MULI{ERE: I got it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that will modiff and limit everything.
MR. MULIIERE: Yeah. Yes, I think that's a broad limitation. I'll figure out where to put i! but it's
a broad limitation. It covers everything.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Okay.
MR. MULI{ERE: 8699, this is the list of the kinds of uses: Art councils, athletic associations, but
they're all office uses. And there's a few more here: Humane societlz, poetry associations. That must be a big
one. They're all - they're all office uses.
And then you get into 87,000 (sic) series, which are also predominantly offices, but I'll just go over
those real quick. We asked for 8711 through 8748 and, for some reason, I don't have 8748. But engineering
services, architecfural services, surveying services, accounting. All offices.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's after 8742, second line down, halfway across.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, that didn't get -- there we go: Public relations services and facilities support
management, and then there's building consulting services not elsewhere classified. Everywhere else there's a
9 in the numbering system for these not elsewhere classified. For some reason this one has an 8 in it.
Page 29 of 67
February 15,2018
But you can see what it is: Counseling - city planners. You know, you've got to have room for
them; traffi c consultants.
So that is the list. And I've made notes for what I believe is objectionable, and we'll deal with those
and bring back, and I'll get that to you in advance of the next meeting, whenever that's scheduled.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I think that gets us through the use list that, Ned, you had brought up
as part ofyour questions.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Do you want to continue on with whatever else you have?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have exhausted my questions. I've exhausted myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
No response.)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I might as well start offthen. When we met the other day, I told you
what my oveniding concern was, and that's when this project started - and I know we're not judging this
based on the RFP or the agreement, but back then I saw the renderings that you have attached to your
documents here.
And the attitude I saw from people that saw that thought wow, what a great way to - what an entry
component to the City of Naples and a way to get a gateway into a more higher end product and style.
And I still believe this product will do that, and I have the utmost faith in your client that they can get
that done. But as they fear changes in the economy and other things that could happen, they want flexibility
in case what they intend to do can't work. God forbid, say they have to sell it ofi then we're stuck with
whatever's left in this document and who interprets it.
And right now the document says -- or you're suggesting changes to go to 100 units that could be as
small as 500 square feet and a 30,000 piece of commercial. That really means an apartment complex with a
bowling alley, and that is not what was provided originally or in this packet today as what you're trying to
build there.
I cerlainly would suggest, that's not entry to the City ofNaples. I also would suggest it's not enough
of a catalyst to really get much out of the gateway triangle different than what we have today, just newer stuff
but of the same composition.
So I am not convinced, even after our discussion on Tuesday, with the one thing you came back and
changed, and we're not there.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I changed a few other things. I have this handout with the changes
highlighted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we ought to walk through those to see if it helps, because I'm
troubled by what I've seen, and I don't know if it's really consistent with what we had intended, and it seems
to be a substantial change from that.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think I have enough.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's a good thing Mr. Schmitt's not here.
MR. MLILI{ERE: And I don't have one to put on the visualizer, so I'm just waiting on a copy.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If you can start, they can bring me one in a minute.
MR. MULHERE: So that -- that document has a number of changes. I read the vision, purpose, and
intent, and we prepared that based on the meetings ttrat we had in order to establish a -- you know, a vision
for this that is consistent with the graphic exhibits that you see and what our intent is.
A couple of other things that were noted. We use the term in - at the bottom of that first page -- we
use the term "transient lodging" because we allow hotels - or hotel and other transient lodging uses. And it
was pointed out that there really was no definition of what exactly is meant by transient lodging. And I
prepared this language here that says, the term "transient lodging" includes hotels and interval ownership or
vacation rental suites Any such transient lodging shall include the following operational characteristics or
limitations: Lodging accommodations normally on a daily or weekly rate to the general public.
He's making copies -- he's trying to get copies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I know there's not enough copies.
MR. MULHERE: We can wait.
Page 30 of67
February 15,2018
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think your using the overhead is fine, and we'll start with that. But
this will be something that will probably have to be finished up when we come back on this, so...
MR. MLILHERE: I got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: You were on the second.
MR. MULFIRE: Yeah. It said general public or integral (sic) owners and provision for -- excuse
me.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: You pulled some of that out of statute, didn't you? Thafs what it looks like.
MR. MULHERE: It came out of the definition in the LDC. There's actually some language in the
LDC. That's why I took it.
And check-in and housekeeping services as well as other amenities such as dining facilities, meeting
rooms, or recreational facilities.
So I mean, the idea is ttrat it's not -- transient lodging is not permanent lodging. And, unfortunately,
the way that the county code deals wittr it -- I shouldn't say unfortunately. The way the county code deals
with it is, you kind of have to back into what that definition is. If you look at the definition of a dwelling unit,
that's identified - in that definition it says, units that are rented for periods of less than one week or deemed to
be transient lodging.
It doesn't have a definition of transient lodging, but when you go there, you see that language. That's
why I used the rental - daily or weekly rental periods.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: There's where we added the 100 multifamily residential units.
And I want -- I did want to go over this a little bit. Several people raised concem about the
unrestricted allowance -- and it was unrestricted when we submitted in the way that we provided the
language -- relative to dwelling units that would be less than 700 square feet. And so I've inserted some
language here that says, the minimum unit size is 700 square feet for residential dwelling units except that up
to 20 percent may be between 699 and 500 square feet. So there is now a limit on the number that could be
less than 700 square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: While you're on that page, I want to talk about this height. I'm not against it
or anything. I'm trying to make sure it's accurate.
MR. MULHERE: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 160 feet NGVD, but the airport said you could be 160 above their
base; is that right?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And their base is eight.
MR. MULHERE: They said mean sea level.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could be 160 feet above mean sea level.
MR. MULHERE: One hundred sixty-eight feet above.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was lowest - the facilities at the airport. There was some
language in the Naples Airport Authority.
MR. MULI{ERE: No. What they said was 168 feet above mean sea level, and at that location mean
sea level is eight feet. The airport is eight feet. Do you want to talk?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if the airport's eight fee! and you want to - and that's eight feet
NGVD, and you want to go to 160 feet NGVD, what's your building height going to end up at?
MR. MULFIERE: Well, that's what we discussed before. Perhaps the NGVD needs to be limited to
the actual height. What we want to be able to do is build a 160-foottall building basically from existing
grade, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: That's what we want to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The documents that were included, you've -- there's all kinds of variables in
there from what the federal government wanted versus the local airport -
MR. MULHERE: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: - and everything else, and they use different acronyms.
Page 31 of67
February 15,2018
MR. MULHERE: We've talked about this for, I don't know, hours and hours and hours.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: What I thought what we were ending up is your base starting point for
measurement would be equivalent to the Naples Airport.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Naples Airport's base starting point for measurement is a plus eight
NGVD and you want a 160-foot-tall building --
MR. MULIIERE: Yes, 168.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: -- you'd have to be 160 on top of the eight. So your zoned heigh! then,
would be 168, and you're -- then you would have a different height for your actual.
I have no way of knowing if that is consistent with what the airports intended, but there's too many
different ways to figure out where to starl and stop on this thing.
MR. MULFDRE: The maximum height that we can achieve, nothing -- no structure, nothing can be
higher than 168 feet above mean sea level. Nothing can be higher than that. No elevator shaft, nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't use mean sea level. We use --
MR. MULHERE: I know, but that's why I tried to translate.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I asked you to provide an engineering computation telling us how we
can convert that to a standard we understand so we know how your height factored in.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I say something here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's a bad thing to put in there, because what you're
doing -- that's not the building height. That's the elevation of the top of the building is 168 NGVD. Nobody
uses NGVD anymore. They've gone to NAVD. National Geodetic Vertical Datum has gone to North
American Vertical Datum as of about 30 years. All your LiDAR is NAVD.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mean sea level, that is just a bad -- if you're going to put
building height, don't put building height. Put elevation of top of building is 168 NGVD, and then convert it
to NAVD, which you're supposed to be doing anyway.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we'll dothat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you, by the time you come back, get somebody to explain
where your measurement point starts and where it ends? I would hate to see you design this project your
architect thinking one thing, your engineer's thinking another, and the county staff interpreting it a different
way because of this document. So let's just all get on the same page.
MR. MULI{ERE: I agree.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And I'm -- I'll move on. You've already corrected the 500 per unit.
I understand what you're doing there. I do have staffquestions, but I'm going to get those afterwards. I'm just
going to keep moving through my -- some of these were cleaned up by Ned's questions.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN : Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Quick question. It's a point of clarification. They had mentioned
relocating that -- that big tower that's 180, that's the cell phone tower?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's there, yes. There's a cell phone tower there now.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just out of curiosity, where do you relocate a cell phone? I mean,
who dictates that, and how does that get done?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't have an answer. I mean, they've got to be zoned for a cell phone
tower, and there's other locations in the county. I don't know where there's one in this area. I haven't looked
at it.
MR. MULI{ERE: That tower is, actually, I think, 190, maybe 196 feet.
That is the obligation -- we're not the property owner. The county's the properly owner. That is the
obligation of the county to work with the cell tower owner/operator to relocate that. And, you know, we're not
even -- I'm not even involved in those discussions, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And they're here today, and I believe there's some kind of discussion
Page 32 of 67
February 15,2018
involving how to mutually agree on to move forward with them, at some point today. I think we talked about
that in the beginning of the meeting today. So we'll get to that eventually.
MR. MULHERE: I've got to defer to my client when we get to that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, there was material that indicated it was going to be
southeast of the present location on Kirkwood Avenue.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, it's wherever it can be zoned for, yeah. I mean, they could -- any of
the zoning districts, if there's property there that they can put a tower up, that would be a location. I don't
know. I mean...
ln your principal uses on Page I at the bottom, you talk about the indoor air-conditioned passenger
vehicle and self-storage limited to 60,000 square feet. So whatever that square footage is, none of -- it's all
indoor storage, even the mini - you could have mini-self-storage but it's all indoor storage; is that correct?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: And is it only going to be "and" or is it going to be "or"? Always are you
going to have a combination ofpassenger vehicle and self-storage, or are you going to have one or the other
exclusively?
MR. MULHERE: I think it's a combination. It's intended to allow for both because somebody that's
storing a vehicle may want to have -- you know, if they have a condo, they may want to store some other
stuff
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I just wanted to understand.
Number 3, your new car dealerships on the next page, you're talking about 30,000 square feet. One
of the questions was, and I think it's been answered, all that's enclosed --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- within the -- with the exception of any temporary storage outside -
MR. MULHERE: Special events.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- use you've got listed here in one of your paragraphs.
Okay. I'm looking at the rest of my -- well, these -- I've got some questions for staff.
I guess the County Attorney's Offrce, I'd just like to confirm something. And, Heidi, I mentioned it
to you before. All the advertising both for the NIM and everything else that's been used for this project
advertises2l0units, l52hotel,T4and60forthemixofcommercial. Butthroughtheconversion,they're
now saying they have a cap of 400 multifamily units, 200 hotel rooms, and 200,000 in combination retail and
general office, and then some of the other uses, which is assisted living, self-storage, and new car dealership.
Does the advertising that's been used to date provide for the flexibility to allow those conversions
that happen without having the advertising changed?
You've got to tum it on.
MS. ASHION-CICKO: In my opinion, it's sufficient because it did indicate that there would be
conversions. So they don't get all those maximums you're mentioning. They can only do that through a
conversion, so --
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASFilON-CICKO: -- I was satisfied with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the previous -- well, in the Paragraph X, it's on Page 4 of the PUD
and the top of the page, it says, no building permit will be issued for vertical consfuction on the last
un-development I\zD(U tract depicted on Exhibit C master plan unless the certificate of occupancy has been
issued for the minimum 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development.
Now, I know we're going to be changing some of those numbers or potentially. But then it says "or."
Or the minimum 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development is
included in the requested building permit.
Now, the way I'm reading that is, the minimum - no building permit for vertical construction can
happen without a CO on some of that, on the last development trac! or you've simply got to request a
building permit for it, and it can happen. So why would you worry about doing a CO if you only need to
apply for a building permit? You don't need to have it received.
I'm just wondering, after the word "or," what is all that there for? Why don't we just scratch that?
Page 33 of67
February 15,2018
MR. MULI{ERE: Because the way it read, if you don't include that last phrase, if you read just "no
building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last un-development tract unless a certificate of
occupancy has been issued for the minimum of 50 dwelling units" and so on and so fofth, then you stop right
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right.
MR.MULHERE: Ifyoudothat,thatdoesn'tconsiderthepossibilitythatthatlasttractwill,infact,
include those 50 and 30-.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: But if you're just including it by a reference to just requesting a building
permit, we all have been in this business long enough. You can request a building permiq but that's it. It gets
kicked out, and you never have to request it again and you're done. I don't think that ties it to what we're
trying to get to.
MR. MULI{ERE: What I was just discussing with my client is that that's in there because we don't
want to be held up starting the next building waiting if it was under construction but no CO had been issued.
So waiting, while one building's under construction or two buildings are under construction, and now we're
coming in for the last phase, no CO has been issued there, but we want to start the third phase. We want to
get a permit and we want to start construction, if I explained that conectly.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So what this would mean is on that last phase, you wouldn't have to
have - if you previously, through the other phases, have not accomplished the minimums --
MR. MULFGRE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- you still wouldn't have to complete them in the last phase because
it's -- only -- you only have to do (sic) is request a building permi! right?
MR. MULI{ERE: Well,Imean --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Jerry's shaking his head no, so obviously I'm not catching on what you're
tying to do here.
MR. MULI{ERE: Well, I mean, are you suggesting that in the event that it hasn't already occurred,
we come in for the last tract we get a building permit, we commence construction --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It doesn't say get a building permit and --
MR. MULFIERE: It says a building permit has been issued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It says included in a - included in a requested building permit.
MR. MULFDRE: Oh, okay.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: The word "requested" means you simply ask for it and it gets kicked back
out again. You'd walk away. I requested it. It got turned down. Thank you.
MR. MULFIERE: Well-- and -- issued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- yes. Whatever word you want to come up with, it needs to be
stronger than "requested."
MR. MULHERE: I gotcha.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: ln Item C, which is Tract GO, the green open space --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- I had suggested we look and make sure that's consistent with the LDC or
it's mirrored in one of the deviations that you've asked for, so...
MR. MULHERE: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I hadn't got time -- I didn't get time to match those up, but that was
something that needed to be done.
On the developments - Exhibit B, the Development Standards Table, the fifth box or sixth box down
on the left side, it says, "all other perimeter buffers." I suggested "all other PUD perimeter buffers" so there's
no confusion over tracts in the perimeter.
MR. MULI{ERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we have the actual height issue here which is part of that
discussion we just had.
MR. MULFIE,RE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And let me see.
Page 34 of 67
February 15,2018
On the - Page 26 of 28, it's 2, transporLation, B, transit stops and shelters. Last sentence, I just
wanted to have possibly a clarification. At the developer/owner's option, a unique design consistent with the
project architecture may be utilized. I just want to make sure that the CAT folks have an opporhrnity to
weigh in and agree that whatever you're designing is acceptable to them.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise, it could read that you're just going to do i! and this is what
you're going to do, and everybody walks away from it.
MR. MULI{ERE: That was the intention. And I thought -- let me just see something. I'm looking
for it right now.
A unique design consistent with the project architecture may be utilized. Yeah, we'll add something
that - you know, with approval of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Collier County CAT. They're all -- yeah, that will work. Just something so
we make sure we have that approval.
MR. MULI{ERE: I got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the backup to the staffreporg there's only 303 pages of it. It was Eric's,
obviously. Page - one of the pages had a letter from you-all, your HMA, on December 2ls! 2016, andin
that letter it said, both the CRA advisory board and the CRA board, parenthetical, County Commission sitting
as the CRA board, end parenthetical, approved the conceptual development plan. Can you show me what
plan they approved?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not sure if that -- in hindsight Im not sure if that's 100 percent accurate.
They approved a contract which has no bearing on this discussion which had conceptual plans attached to ig
so...
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. But you proffered it as part of the discussion for support of your
document --
MR. MULHERE: It's the same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - so I think we get to see that plan.
MR. MULIDRE: It's the same plan that you're looking at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which plan is it; those colored renderings with all the high-rise buildings?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it's the renderings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only plan that you presented to these boards was that plan?
MR. MULI{ERE: Exactly right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they think they're getting that plan?
MR. MULFIERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's ourjob to make sure they do.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. No question.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. You've now - I'm going into yourtraffic stuff, and -
MR. MULFDRE: Early lunch?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, we're going to end up -- Norm's going to be here before
we finish this, so I'm not going to waste time trying to get answers out of you that you're not as versed on as
he is.
MR. MULHERE: No,I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll go that route.
And so that brings me to the end of, I think -- well, I've got Comprehensive Planning questions, but
that's for staff. I'm just checking the rest real quick.
The City of Naples issues, I've got several letters from Greg over at the city, or you have some - Eric
did, and they're included in there, and I'll -- some of those that are involving transportation, I'll hold offuntil
Norm gets here. The sidewalk issue they brought up, you basically explained you're always going to maintain
the clear sidewalk that's required.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They're looking at bus load-out areas. I don't even know if a bus
issue is needed there, but if there is - I guess Michelle got bored and left. So if she was still here, I'd
Page 35 of67
February 15,2018
probably ask her that question.
MR. MULI{ERE: Again, that language was developed 100 percent in consultation with them and
actually came from them, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the city's position or suggestion on the site water
management system?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I'm familiar with it. And we have to go through the permitting process. To
the degree that we have to add attenuation for water quality, it's going to be part of the permitting process.
We haven't even designed the site for stormwater yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're suggesting -- they want to make sure you get through the -- you
utilize the South Florida standards.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And, you know, there is a pond site, as I mentioned to you, that we will
utilize for all or a portion of our stormwater. That's what the county bought it for, paid a lot of money to
acquire the land and create the pond. And we're entitled to use that, so we will use tha! but we'll go through
the permitting process. And whatever's required, we'll adhere to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Pieces of the questions that perlain to transportation from the city, I'll wait
till Norm gets here.
MR. BELLOWS: We do have someone here from the CAT other than Michelle.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: There's another person in CAT besides Michelle? Oh. Well, by all means,
come on up. Well, I guess he can answer the question in regards to -- yeah, please come on up forjust a
minute. It will only take a second to ask you what I need to.
I didn't know Michelle had anybody else working with her. She's been carrying the load for so many
years, I didn't know anybody else was there.
MR. DE LEON: Yes. Just for the record, Omar De Leon with CAT with Collier County.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pleasure to meet you.
The only question - you heard the comment about the reference to the architecture for the bus
transition. Is there any problems with having a developer do that separately, or do you have standards that
they cannot change?
MR. DE LEON: No. And I think we've had discussions regarding some of the requirements FDOT
will have as well as with regards to shelters and things like that. But we will be agreeable to any structure
that -- we'll have to have that discussion about the structure and things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And you're - the City of Naples provided the following question: Turn
lanes or bus pullouts, loading areas created outside ofvehicle through lanes are frequently used by transit
buses for dropoffand pickup. The existing bus stop is located within the 45-mile-per-hour travel lane on U.S.
41, a less than desirable location. A bus pullout or turn lane is recommended.
Have you guys looked at this site for a possible bus location, or did you not see it needed on this
particular site?
MR. DE LEON: We didn't see a need just yet. I think what was discussed, that it would be evaluated
after to see what the usage may be. But at this point we don't see a need for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: If the usage is based on what they're supposed to provide or what their
agreements were providing, which is 210, 152 plus commercial, would that provide you with enough
information to know if you need a bus stop? And if so, if you wait too long to enter into the picture, how
would you get the bus stop? Because the building's going to be locked in.
MR. DE LEON: No. Well, the bus stop is coming in. I think what's - the discussion is, I guess, the
pullout or pull-in is what -
MR. MULHERE: They're doing abus stop.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. DE LEON: Yeah. So the sheltered stop, that would be - is what's agreed on.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And is the bus stop that's provided for causing the travel lane on U.S. 4l or
Davis Boulevard to be blocked while the bus loads and unloads?
MR. DE LEON: Yeah. Temporarily, when they - boarding and the lighting at, like, typical bus
stops along those roadways.
Page 36 of67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I need.
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: They don't now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying they don't. I just wanted to understand, because that was a
question from the city. Im trying to get a direct answer.
MR. MULHERE: Well - and I just want to add, as I said, there are lots of examples of arterial
roadways, and the CAT bus, because it's -- because the majority of the routes utilize the arterial roadways,
they do stop everywhere along the arterial roadways without pullout. You know, it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: FDOT is involved in this?
MR. MULHERE: We are required -- all access has to be reviewed and approved by FDOT.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they are involved with this bus stop and the whole thing,
too?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONEREBERT: Okay. Just-
MR. MULHERE: And, you know, I'm glad you asked that question, because you just reminded me
quickly, I wanted to say, the existing conditions right now have far more ill-designed, wide points of ingress
and egress running both along Davis and along 41. We are actually reducing the conflict points and, of
course, designing them under the current standards for the safest and most appropriate access, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- thank you, sir.
MR. DE LEON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, this is kind of an overall idea orthought.
The first renderings that I saw on this project included the property at the very point which I think at
one time you-all may have considered purchasing to include in your properly. I know that didn't happen. It
got purchased by somebody else. I did see the renderings, though, that had different structures than are there
today.
If you had gotten that property, would you have included it in this process?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. We had at one point discussed whether we could make some provisions to
do that even though we don't have it now. But it was just impossible. We don't own the property. We don't
have the right. And we just couldn't do it. We tried to sort of say, in the event we get ig it's part of this, but
you can't do that with zoning. We'd have to come back and amend the zoning and do that.
We never actually really had any legal rights to that property.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh,l understand.
MR. MULHERE: And those renderings that you saw, they actually showed other proposed
improvements could go on the property. But then after we got the actual graphics, we ghosted those in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what happened, those original renderings were a much lower structure.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I notice that you more or less complemented your site's ability because
of the transition between the higher structure that is proposed there now versus what you have. Well, if that
structure wasn't builq would that still matter?
MR. MULHERE: I think if that sructure wasn't built and somebody else -- us or somebody else
came in and constructed something, there still has to be an appropriate transition there, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I got to thinking about it is what you're asking for today and
what you've shown, you know, in the program that you've laid out basically is a first-time idea for Collier
County.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Im wondering if the front property would ever -- is ever going to possibly
change. And you mentioned your concern over their operation being a hotel and how that would deplete your
ability maybe to have a hotel as well. But if they were to come in and ty to do a PUD and ask for the same
densities and issues you're asking for, then you'd end up with competition in all facets. So what would
Page37 of67
February 15,2018
happen then?
MR. MULHERE: Oh, youknow --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, I'm wondering from the overall grand plan that you're looking at -
MR. MULHERE: They're less than half the size of our project. So, think, that would be less than
half of the intensity or density. They would be eliminated -- if they did that, they would be limited the same
way we are by traffic trips and other limitations that you put in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ijust thought it was
MR. MULHERE: I don't know who owning that parcel -- other than market forces affecting your
ability to go forward with the development, I don't know who wouldn't take advantage of the incentives that
have been provided in the CRA, which include density. You can double use. You can - unlike other areas,
you can calculate residential density and hotel density and use them both on the site. You can do 120 feet
zoned on that site.
So I don't know who wouldn't want to maximum the utilization of those incentives. You know,
who's going to build a one-story building? I mean, you don't take advantage of those incentives.
So do I think there still should be an appropriate transition? Yes. What that is, it's -- you know,
it's -- I can only comment on what I know is approved on the site today.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Bob, I understand. It was more of a -- just tying to understand
how this thing could flow different ways. Because you guys are looking for maximum flexibility, and I
understood your concern over, ifthey do a hotel, how can you have a hotel, too?
You may need some transition. So that's kind of where I was coming from, trying to understand how
far that transition would have to go.
So -- but with that in mind, that's the last questions I have right now. I've got a lot of questions of
staff. That will have to come probably after lunch. But what I'd like to do right now, in order to help with
those in the audience who are here to discuss this project if anybody would want to speak now in lieu of later
today so they can move forward, if they have other things to do, before lunch, we can certainly accommodate
public speakers right now if you-all would like.
And so, Ray, do you have any registered public speakers first?
MR. MULHERE: One speaker. Katie Cole.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And all I ask is, Ms. Cole, if you'd like to speak now or later this afternoon,
it's up to you. If you want to speak now, you can come up to the microphone. If you don't come up, I know
you don't want to.
MS. COLE: I'llwait.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else in the public who would like to speak now in lieu of
later today?
Ms. Penniman, did you want to speak now?
MS. PENNIMAN: If at all possible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. We'd love to accommodate you.
MS. PENNIMAN: I appreciate your allowing me to speak today. I'm not here representing the City
Council. I'm here as an individual living in the City of Naples.
And the amount of impact on the city regarding this particular project was daunting to begin with.
Now we're dealing with numbers that far exceed the original numbers. And that, you know, only increases
the impact on the city.
So, you know, go carefully. Go - you know, go slowly with this, because this isn't going to be the
only project that's going to be on East 41. If this does what it's supposed to do, it's going to have a cataly'tic
influence on what is done further east.
So now you're increasing not only roads - or traffic, but, you krow, I have every question as to
whether or not the infrastructure is there to even handle, necessarily, what's going to possibly be on the
triangle. Ijust think the impact of this is so huge that we need to look at it not necessarily as one area of the
county but a catalyst as to what could be going forward. That's what the CRA basically was saying to these
people. If it works, there's going to be greater impact on the city.
So I'm more than concemed about that. I was concemed about, frankly, the original iteration. The
Page 38 of67
February 15,2018
thing that made it somewhat attractive was that it was a very attractive project.
The 500 units, you know, that is of some concern to me tha! frankly, I'm not even sure a five-foot
sidewalk is adequate. We hope that there would be more pedestrian connectivity between the city and this
project as opposed to auto.
So all Im asking is, you know, to look at this in isolation from anything else is just, I don't
think -- you know, from my standpoint, would not be a well-planned community.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. PENNIMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the public who would like to speak now in lieu of later?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that Eric, it's going to fall to you for a beginning of the staff
report, and then I know Comprehensive Planning has got a part of ig and I know Jeremy's here waiting for the
LDC piece, so...
MR. BELLOWS: Did you want to start with Growth Management Plan amendment first, as you
mentioned earlier?
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that would be a good idea because then we can focus on the
questions while David's up here, and then we get into the traffrc stuffand others that will come with Eric
hopefully by the time - after lunch.
MR. WEEKS: Good moming, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning
staff I will be brief.
I first just want to put on the record that the petition complies with the statutory standards for a
small-scale amendment. Bob went over the portion of that. The project being 10 acres or less in size, it's not
within an area ofcritical state concern, et cetera, et cetera.
Secondly, it's staffs opinion that the project complies with the broader statutory requirements for any
type of Comprehensive Plan amendment, and that includes that the amendment does specifo the density and
intensity parameters, that there is either a need demonstrated for what is proposed here and/or that the project
reflects or fulfills a community vision, and in particular staffwould say it falls on that latter side, that it
fulfills the vision of the community as expressed and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Overlay which itself was created as a mechanism for implementing the community redevelopment plan,
which dates back to the year 2000.
We do think this is an appropriate location for the site. After all, it is within the site identified within
the Comprehensive Plan overlay for a catalyst project.
From a general compatibility perspective, staffdoes find that the project is compatible with the
sunounding area. We don't look at the detailed compatibility for a given project. We defer that to ttre zoning
services staff.
The infrastrucfure impacts, as well as the impacts upon the environment and *re cultural resources on
the property, are all acceptable as well.
Finally, staffdoes recommend approval, as stated in the staffrepor! subject to some, what I'll call,
cleanup language changes. They are not substantive in nature. They arejust to get the language ofthe
subdistrict into proper format, maintain intemal consistency, et cetera.
The one area that we did not recommend any change to of the applicant's language is that portion of
the amendment that affects the Bayshore lGateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay itself. They simply have
provided cross-references between the subdistrict and that overlay or exceptions to limitations within the
overlay, again, to recognize that the subdistrict does exist within the overlay.
And that also includes, Mr. Chairman, a couple points you had raised yesterday about the subdistrict
reference within the overlay. In my opinion, the language is acceptable as it is. It does not need to be
changed any farther. So that is the staffrecommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? We'll start with Stan and then Ned.
COMMISSIONERFRYER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you said the infrastructure is sufficien! you mean that
utilities staffhas looked at water and sewer, and transportation has looked at that part and determined that it
Page 39 of67
February 15,2018
either will handle it or it car be made to handle it?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Ned, then Tom.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two questions. First of all, how -- with respect to infrastructure, how
can -- how can the roadways be modified other than widening, which is not on the table, in order to
accommodate the increased traffic we all expect we'll see starting with this?
MR. WEEKS: Two things. One, our frnding that the impacts are acceptable for infrastructure is
based upon the reviews of the staff within those specific disciplines. Secondly, I would go back to something
that Bob mentioned during his presentation, and that is this project is within a transportation concurrency
exception area.
So what that translates to is that this project is not reviewed on a link-by-link concurency basis as
would typically occur for a given project.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, and I realize that the application is within the prescribed
limits and is excused from other limits.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question, though, is as a practical matter, does staffhave a point of
view on the practical effect of the additional traffic coming from this project and then combined with
subsequent developments? And is the net result of those increases something that is going to make East
Naples a better place?
MR. WEEKS: Since that's a very specific question related to transportation, I'll have to defer to
those professionals.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My second question then is, the word "catalyst" has been used a
lot. Would you tell me what that means to you or that means to the counf?
MR. WEEKS: Based on the terminology in the overlay in the Future Land Use Element, it is a
redevelopment of the project. There's no specific project in mind. There are allowances, as Bob has
mentioned, for a maximum of 12 units per acre for a mixed-use project on this site or any of the other
properties within the mini-triangle area: U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard, and Commercial Drive.
So any redevelopment -- I mean, that could be viewed very broadly that any redevelopment of the
mini-triangle is a catalyst for further development because it's removing what is there now, which is, just
broadly speaking, not the most desirable of land uses for a gateway either into the City of Naples or
out -- from the City of Naples heading toward the unincorporated area.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Any redevelopment would be a catalyst?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes. As a practical matter, because of the value of the properly, I would think it
would be a significant -- significant project on the site.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess, I thought what you meant by catalyst was something that was
of a higher quality than just any possible redevelopment, something that would have the effect of being a
magnet or an attraction feature to bring other first-class development in, not just any redevelopment.
MR. WEEKS: Well, certainly the better, the higher quality, the better of a project that we see at this
location would function to attract similar type projects, but the language in the Comprehensive Plan does not
specifo, it does not tell us exactly what type of development we're looking for.
But again, Commissioner, I go back to my comment that given the value of the land, we think
it's - just to be economically viable, it's going to take a significant investment on the part of the developer.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom?
MR. EASTMAN: David, just a clarification about the scope of your review. You said you didn't get
into the details of it.
So, hypothetically, you're looking at whether a hotel is compatible on this site with the neighboring
properlies, and is it correct that you're not looking at the intensity of that hotel? It could be a l0-room hotel or
a thousand-room hotel. You don't get into those details. You're just looking at whether a hotel is compatible,
or do you consider the intensity and the size of the hotel in your review?
Page 40 of67
February 15,2018
MR. WEEKS: We do consider the intensity of the project. Simply to say a hotel because that could
be a two-story, three-story building, so we do take into account the overall intensity of the development that
occurs.
What ['m saying is we don't look at it to the detailed level that zoning would. Whether we look at
building heights, building orientations, building mass, setbacks, maximum height standards, amount of open
space on the property, landscape buffers. All those types of details that zoning would look a! we don't look
atitatthat level. We just broadly say, if this intensity of development were located here, would it generally
be compatible with the uses on the surrounding properties?
You know, we have commercial right on the corridor. We have single-family development to the
north in the Brookside subdivision and southeast of this property across 41. Beyond the commercial corridor,
there's also single-family residential there.
So in the big-picture view of the surrounding area, is this generally compatible? That's what we look
at, and it's our conclusion it is.
MR. EASTMAN: I appreciate your answer. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: In your answer, though, you indicated you do look at intensity?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 210 development units thatthis was first portrayed as provides
39 units per acre, gross acre. Do you -- can you tell me any other project in that area or, for that matter, in
Collier County that has 39 units per acre?
MR. WEEKS: I don't know of any.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And the second part of your density analysis, it looks at the 400
units per acre -- per development, and it says that's 75 -- 74.77 development units per acre. So I'm then to
assume that if there's no similar compatible development units per acre of 39, you certainly don't have any at
75.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you look at intensity, how did you determine this was compatible?
MR.WEEKS: Again,thatbig-pictureview,whetherit's50unitsperacre,39,77,l2,justlookingat
the total intensity of the project. Part of thag a big part of that is the actual building that can be on the property
or buildings, because there's the height limit. Though the Comprehensive Plan amendment does defer to the
mixed-use PUD document for the specific heigh! we do know that it's going to be a very tall building
because we're not blind to what the PUD proposes. So staff-- Comprehensive Planning staffis certainly
aware that the building height proposed is 160-something feet.
So we've looked at more the standpoint of there could be multiple buildings of this
160-something-foot heigh! and is that generally compatible with the broader surrounding area. And
regardless of the number of dwelling units, they have to fit within a certain building mass, and that physical
impact is what we've focused on.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, had you tied the provision of being a catalyst to the ability for the
density to be compatible on a redevelopment area such as this, I think that would have been more logical for
me to understand.
I mean, a stand-alone project of this magnitude, I'm not complaining about the density. I'm just
asking for purposes of trying to undentand how your departrnent saw this as compatible. I understand what
you said, so we'll leave it at that.
MR. WEEKS: I'll comment further just to say that we certainly recognize that the plan right now
allows for 12 units per acre maximum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: And this is three-fold or more greaterthan that.
We've given deference to a couple things in particular; one, the fact that the CRA advisory board has
been supportive of the project because, after all, it's in the CRA's boundaries. It's in their area.
We give deference to what their opinion is, understanding that their focus is not on land use
compatibility. You know, those are things that fall within the plannin{zoning realm, but they are looking at
the economic development of the whole CRA. That's the whole purpose of their existence is to try to
Page 4l of 67
February 15,2018
promote more development and redevelopment within that area. So we've given deference to them and their
support ofthe project.
And, secondly, we've given some deference to the applicant in his assertion that they need the
development intensity that they are asking for and the flexibility they are asking for to make the project
viable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you, in your understanding of what the CRA board had liked, realize
that they were looking at that rendering that was provided to us in our packet and that the language in the
zoning application and even in your Comprehensive Plan doesn't necessarily provide that rendering? I mean,
does that have any bearing on your review ofthis?
Because if you relied on the CRA to believe this was a better project for the are4 and it was the
portrayal of the photograph that was provided to everybody and they got flexibility in here to a point where
you may not get that portrayal, how does that affect your analysis?
MR. WEEKS: First, I don't know specifically what the CRA advisory board looked at so I don't
know -- the renderings you're referring to, I don't know --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, the testimony today was they saw the renderings that are part of the
packet. I didn't know if you've read the packet or not.
MR. WEEKS: I did not know that prior -- beforehand exactly what they had looked at. I just knew
the project. I knew that the petitioner has had discussions with CRA stafi that they had made a presentation
to the advisory board. I just did not know the specifics of what it was.
Secondly, to the specific question of the renderings themselves, I could only say that our viewpoint
was just, again, the general compatibility. I think it would be appropriate if the CRA advisory board has
made their recommendation based on specific renderings that the county should do whatever it can to try to
implement, then, what is shown in those renderings.
You know, we've been through this before -- not an assertion in this case. But we've been through
this before in my 30-something years here when we see preffy pictures, and this is what could be there but we
have to make sure that the regulatory part of the planning and zoning application that actually gets adopted,
when it gets implemented, that it will make sure that the pretty picture is what we end up with there, to the
greatest extent possible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the piece that I've had the most trouble getting my arms around
with my discussions Tuesday this week and so far today.
In part of your Comprehensive Planning analysis, you refer to the subdistrict location is within five
miles of high employment centers, Naples Community Hospital downtown, multiple shopping areas,
including Coastland Center, Naples High School, many other employment locations.
Did you do that because you think this is going to be an affordable housing project?
MR. WEEKS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, because most of the references - a lot of the people that work at
Naples Community and the shopping centers like that probably aren't high wage earners. And I'm not sure
this project is going to be even close to their realm. I'm just wondering what relevance that language had.
MR. WEEKS: It's a general observation that there are employment centers, major employment
centers within a reasonable distance to the property and that possibly some of the persons that would be
residing here could be employed at those locations.
The shopping in particular, I think, is probably not the best example for us to include. But the
hospital, in particular, and schools, they employee professionals, particularly at the administrative and
management level that potentially, I would say, could be of an income level that might stay here.
Commissioner, we don't know what the final product is going to be. We don't know what income
level will be targeted or be able to afford these units. It was, again, a part of the broad evaluation of the
product. And part of that comment as well was tying into the fact that this project site is similar to a
mixed-use activity center. Mixed-use activity centers being intersections of major roadways, allowing for
high density, allowing for mixed use, and many of the activity centers also are -- themselves provide
employment opportunities or are proximate to major employment centers.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And my last question: David, yesterday when we met I asked you to
Page 42 of 67
February 15,2018
clariff aparagraph that tumed out to be part of the applicant's submittal, not necessarily the recommended
language that you-all are providing, and it was that No. 4 item on Page 4 of their process that said, this
particular paragraph is exempt from the mini-triangle subdistrict.
And I just want to make sure, because I was confused. There's the mini-triangle subdistric! which is
only this piece of those properties compared to the whole mini-triangle are4 which is about from Commerce
sic) Drive all the way to the point. ls that -- that's what it -- that's what we're -- all we're dealing with from
the comprehensive perspective today.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. So that paragraph is needed because it does not comprise the entirety
of the mini-triangle catalyst project that's identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It's just a portion of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And just so we make sure we're not tripping any self-amending language, I
brought a point out to you in a Paragraph 8 on Page 5 of their submittal that suggested that the mini-district
mixed-use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the mini-triangle subdistrict and its
implementing MPUD zoning.
I suggest we drop that last language off"and in its implementing MPUD zoning." Did you look at
that, and do you have a problem with that or -
MR. WEEKS: I still think it's appropriate to be there.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, you've been doing it longer than I have, so lll go along with
your position on it. I just wanted to make sure. And in No. 10, the word "except" I suggested change to the
word "and." Did you have a problem with that?
MR. WEEKS: I also think it should remain as "except."
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: I did look at both ofthose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. As long as you looked at them. They just raised questions
of me. They're not any,thing I was going to die my sword over. I just wanted to make sure I understood it.
And that's the last questions I have for the Comprehensive Planning side of it.
And, Bob, you have one thing? Or, David?
MR. WEEKS: One last thing: I did want to acknowledge that per the earlier discussions, staffis
aware that the minimum number of dwelling units would move from 50 to 100.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. And there might be other changes that were needed in that language,
that minimum language you have if - depending on how the next day -- the rest of the day folds out.
Bob, did you want something?
MR. MTILI{ERE: Very briefly, just relative to this discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: You normally get a rebuttal but --
MR. MULHERE: I know. Relative to the comp plan. It's directly related to that --
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay.
MR. MLILI{ERE: - to some of the questions that were asked.
When we made a presentation to the CRA board, the official presentation, we not only discussed the
graphic exhibits and showed them those, but we also discussed the conversion formula. They had all of the
information in front of them. So their decision was based on --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Did they realize that the document that we're seeing today had 50 units at
500 square feet each and a bowling alley potential, or did that -
MR. MULHERE: Well, we didn't talk about that, but it was in the document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did they realize that the number of units you were looking at as
a cap were over 400 -- were 400 units?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MULIIERE: So - and the other thing I wanted to add real quick, you know, the term "catalyst"
is used in the Comp Plan, and it was just -- a question was asked about it. It's not specifically defined, I think,
as David said. To my knowledge, when something isn't specifically defined, you would use the sort of
common definition of it. I believe that's some form of legal process.
And I did look at this, and I just wanted to share it with you. You know, it really refers to a chemical
Page 43 of 67
February 15,2018
process, a substance that advances a chemical reaction without changing the substance. But the synonyms, I
think, are more telling, and that's what I looked at. It's a stimulus, stimulation, spark, spur, insight, impefus.
And I think that was the intent of using that word was as an impetus, a spark, an incitement an inducement to
do further redevelopment.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which is really more than "any" redevelopment.
MR. MULHERE: I think it is, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you.
That takes us -- and I notice that Norm came in, so it's a good time to take an hour break for lunch.
Thank you for showing up for lunch, Norm. That will help. So we'll resume all this -- we'll resume at 1
o'clock when we come back from lunch. Thank you.
MR. MULFDRE: Thankyou.
A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Dearbom is absent for the remainder of the
meeting.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, welcome back from lunch.
When we left for lunch, we were finishing up with the Comprehensive Planning comments part of
this collective group of land use actions. And before we left, I realized, in seeing one lonely person in the
audience, that Jeremy French is sitting here waiting for us to address the LDC issue. And I don't know if
there's much to address there, so I thought we'd take that first and free up Jeremy to get back to his office and
do the things he does best. So, Jeremy.
MR. FRANTZ: Afternoon. Jeremy Frana, forthe record.
Yeah, so the LDC amendment there is one criteria in the LDC for LDC amendments, and that is
to -- that they preserve the consistency with the GMP -- within the GMP. Our analysis is that it does do just
that.
We've also provided some other analysis about the exemption from building height, and we
recommend approval.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: And you heard the discussion of the height and how it needs to be a little bit
thought out yet, but no matter what happens, you're just referring to it as written in ordinance 2'1 - whatever
the - it would be a 2018 ordinance now, but --
MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We include a reference also to the FAA determinations and the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the applicant, I believe, is going to come back with
something to show how that folds out to Collier County's numbers, so maybe there's some opportunity there
to take a look at it as well.
MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I didn't want to see the actual number within the LDC. Leave that in the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, this is one of those items that we'll probably vote on two
weeks or so fiom now, the next meeting. But is there any questions or any comments about the land use -- or
the LDC language that Jeremy has? It's 9D.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We freed you up.
MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I guess I should just comment further then. You said we'll approve it in a
couple of weeks. It should be -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if we'll approve it. We'll review it for vote in about
two -- the first of March.
MR. MULHERE: We like whatyou said.
MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Just that it should be reviewed at the same time as the GMP. It refers to that
GMP subdistrict. It should have that same date.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: It will be. The only thing I'm suggesting is as the staffgets new
information about the height from the applicant based on discussion today, you may want to -- there may be
somettring that needs to be changed in your language. So at least you've got another two or three weeks to
get that done.
Page 44 of 67
February 15,2018
MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeremy.
Okay. Now, that takes us where we left off. And the next up was going to be a staffreport on the
PUD.
Before we do that, Bob, during lunch I got to thinking about some of the issues that have come up
and, basically, one of the things is a maximum type of uses. You have 400 residential,200 hotel units, and
200,000 square feet of commercial, and that's due to this conversion formula that you've got in here.
So can you tell me, since you did these tables, if you had used -- if you build 400 multifamily
dwelling units, how many hotel rooms and/or retail general office would be left? And vice vers4 if you built
200 hotel rooms -- see, this all gets to providing the --
MR. MULI{ERE: Yeah.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- mix of the picture in the renderings that you provided.
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to make a general statement then I'm going to ask Norm to come up.
He actually prepared the table. He's the transportation expert.
It's really just a mathematical formula. If he needs to bring his calculator with him, he'll have to do
that. But anyway -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I think it would help us understand. Because if you use everlthing
you've got to build 400 units, we're not going to have anything left, and it's not going to be the mixed use.
MR. MULfIRE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that's the kind of analysis - I was just wondering -
MR. MULHERE: Well, except that we have a minimum, so we can't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, minimuln, yes, a bowling alley. Okay.
MR. MULHERE: No, it's not going to be - it's going to be restaurants.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one of the uses you're asking for.
MR. MULHERE: That's one of the uses, yeah, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now -- and, by the way, we're on the uses. We discussed the idea of
making these uses not stand-alone buildings and accessory to the other uses because you guys wanted to use
the bowling alley, a boutique kind of bowling alley thing in conjunction -
MR. MULHERE: We don't have an objection. We don't want to build -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - but your language doesn't say that, so that's something else we need
to consider.
MR. MULI{ERE: No staad-alone. They'll be integrated into these multi-story buildings, which I
thought I did in the purpose and intent, but we'll make it more regulatory.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: I haven't -- and that's one of the things we have to read by next meeting,
so...
MR. MTILHERE: Okay. So what I wanted to say was you made a statement that I don't think is
entirely accurate. I don't think you meant to -- you said you've got these maximums. Those are based on the
tables. Those maximums aren't really based on the tables. We didn't establish a maximum by
calculating -- you know, using the table. Those maximums were based on a reasonable expectation in the
marketplace, and they would not consume -- necessarily consume, you know, all of the - in other words, you
have to do the calculations.
So your example of if we built 190 additional multifamily, how much office square footage would
that consume and how much hotel, vice vers4 would that consume.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't remember saying that it wasn't -- I can't remember what you
just tried to paraphrase.
MR. MULI{ERE: I thought you said they came - that we arrived at that through the table.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. I wanted to know if you were to do 400 units of residential, what's left
to build.
MR. MULHERE: I got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your table is probably the most complicated conversion table
we've seen to date. I mean, the other one was Hacienda. Did you do that one, too?
Page 45 of 67
February 15,2018
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're at fault in both cases. But the Hacienda one was --
MR. MULHERE: There are others.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: - the beginning of, basically, a lot of conversions. This one's a completely
diflerent animal. I'm just try to figure out if you -
MR. MULHERE: Parklands had one. I did that one, too. But anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this one's broader than anything I'm --
MR. MULHERE: It is. It is. It's a unique site.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So if Norm needs some more time, you've got the question. In the
meantime, we can start with the staffreport, and we'll pick this up later then.
Eric?
MR. JOHNSON: Forthe record, Eric Johnson, principal planner.
Staffreviewed the proposed MPUD. Provided that the GMP amendment, the companion GMP
amendment is approved, this MPUD would be consistent with the GMP and also with the LDC provided that
the nine deviations are approved as well as them complying with the three conditions of approval that are
attached to the staffreporl.
Just some housekeeping things I wanted to point out with the title. You'll notice that there's a blue
underline that says "near" rather than the strikeout "on." This was advertised in the Naples Daily News to say
on" rather than "near," but the letters that were sent out and the signs that are posted on the properly say
near." This is more accurate, and this will be the way it's advertised for the Board of County Commissioners.
Also, early on in the process there was a gentleman named Ted Brousseau who wanted to be notified
of the NIM. I notified him of the NIM the day before. He was in attendance at the NIM. He also wanted to
be notified of this meeting. Evidently he is not here today.
Finally -- well, not finally. Also, I think it would be appropriate to change one criterion -- one
response to the staffreport and that's if the companion GMPA petition were to be approved, that's how I
would respond to that.
Finally, I was looking over the PUD document and under the emergency portion of the
commitments, there is a misspelled word. "Necessary" needs to be spelled correctly.
So, in all, staffis recommending approval of the petition. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Any questions of staff?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Eric, let's start with your recommendations on Page 25. Your first
recommendation is any landscaping proposed within the Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard
rights-of-way require approval from the Florida Department of Transportation. So if you didn't say that, they
could just go out and put stuffin the medians along those right-of-ways?
MR. JOHNSON: Not exactly, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what value is that recommendation?
MR. JOHNSON: One of the renderings showed landscaping in the rightof-way, so I felt it was
important for me to say something.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: But even though the rendering shows it, we may -- a rendering shows it, ifs
outside the limits ofthe PUD, right?
MR. JOHNSON: It would be,I suppose.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I just -- again, fm not sure why we need to be repeating something
that has to be done anyway.
The issues of compatibility, and you heard me ask David Weeks where he has seen 39 units per acre
gross in Collier County before. Have you ever experienced that?
MR. JOHNSON: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this one is not only 39, but it can go up to about 75, and I'm
assuming, then, you've never known -- well, you don't have anythin g at 7 5 , so how did you base your
compatibility criteria excluding the fact the density is beyond any'thing we -- what's the closest we ever came
to it? I think it's, what,26?
Page 46 of 67
February 15,2018
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I don't know the answer to that question. I haven't been here long
enough. But the way I based my analysis was on the proposed language that's in the GMP amendmen! the
purpose and intent ofthat, as well as the distance between the subject property and any buildings that would
be on site compared with how far they are liom residential uses, particularly single-family residential uses in
single-family disfict. That's how I conducted the analysis.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fact we don't have any urban high-rise, I understand it's a new
threshold, and I'm - I dont have a problem with that part of it. Ijust wanted to understand how you fitit in
with the intensity and density, and basically you really didn't. You looked at it's in a commercial area with
other commercial products, and it's far enough from - away from single-family for you to feel comfortable
with it.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, considering -- I'm sure Mr. Bellows is going to chime in.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For tle record, Ray Bellows.
That is a correct statement. They're also using conversion factors to stay within the approved trip
generation for this site. So ifyou're reducing commercial square footage in favor ofresidential units, the
overall intensity is still within what was contemplated with the approval.
So while staff didn't object to the higher density residential, it was only because it was part ofthis
conversion factor, at least in my mind.
MR. JOHNSON: And then, finally, if I may just add, you know, the C4 GTMUD-MXD is
surrounding this property, and that has heights that are allowing up to I l2 feet. Ifyou go to the site, you'll
notice that there aren't that many buildings that are that heighg if at all.
So, really, it could be said that the surrounding properties aren't being utilized to their highest and
best potential. So it would look a lot different and this project would be seemingly different ifeverything
around it were built to the highest and best use on the surrounding properties.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Much befter answer. Thank you.
We had talked when I met with you on Page 4 just above the ltem C, that X, I brought it up to the
applicant. The sentence that's added or the portion ofthe sentence added that's after the word "or," is that
something you find necessary for descriptive purposes for that Item X on that page?
MR. JOHN SON : I wou ld not have a problem if anyhing after that "or" was struck out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going through the rest of what I've got here, Eric, sojustgive me
a second to find itall. That's all I've got of staffat this time. So thank you, Eric.
I guess that takes us to the road issues. And we can either ask the questions or, Norm, ifyou want to
at least give us some information. Did you bring any - something tlrat explains the road system or situation
that you're dealing with out there so we can get a graphic view of it? Or if no! we'll walk you through the
questions.
MR. MULFIERE: I don't know if it's on there. You have to go to the -- there you go, and then open it
up.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I need to be swom in, I guess, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. You came in late.
The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you.
For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a certified planner and professional engineer
with 28 years ofexperience.
And I appreciate the opportunity to cover with you. What I have is kind of a summary of the Traffic
Irnpact Statement that you have in more detail in your packets, but I can kind ofreview those items and then
hopefully be able to answer any questions you may have as well.
So what we really cover in the Traffic knpact Statement is a description ofthe project from a trafiic
perspective in terms of land use codes that we use, ard we come up with a trip generation, and then we
distribute those trips and assign them. We look at the background traffic that's there, and that background
traffic data is, you know, developed and held by Collier County orthe City ofNaples, as the case may be, and
then we look at the existing and future road network, and then we really add on our traffic impacts over
Pase 17 of 67
February 15,2018
what's going to be there in the future and look at what those impacts will be, and then we look at site access
and then have some conclusions.
So from a land use standpoint the various uses that we looked at, the snapshot, were the residential,
multifamily, and there's a specific ITE land use code. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has a land
use code for that hotel, likewise, the shopping center, and the medicaVdental office, and they're looked at in
different ways; you know, dwelling units, rooms, those would be occupied rooms, the square footage of the
shopping center and the office as well.
And then that really translates into a total trip generation. We look at a daily volume, a.m. peak, p.m.
peak. And when we look at concunency, though, for the county, what we look at is what we call the p.m.
peak hour and peak direction of concurrency is what's analyzed.
But in terms of the trips, when we run the trip generation numbers, we have kind of what we call a
gross value and a peak-hour amount, and normally we'll look at a two-way volume is what you look at. So
the upper right-hand corner, that 875, that's your peak p.m. hour trips, totally no adjustment.
Then when we look at internal, that's intemal capfure between uses. You know, normally, that's the
idea and ideal behind a mixed-use development because, you know, you can go to one place and not really
have to get out on the road network because your needs can be serviced there by, you know, an existing
restaurant or other type of use that may be there.
So we use those values, collier County also, for internal capture. ITE has limits that they'll allow,
and those will be typically higher than what Collier County -- Collier County will lower that, because they do
want to look at what I call a conservative or high trip generation. So we come up with an external value for
that with internal capture.
And then there's another thing called pass-by, and pass-by is simply that -- somebody that's out on
the road, he may -- that person may stop -- you know, the real simple example is getting a gallon of milk on
your way home or something. You stop in, you get that, but you still were going to be on the road anyway.
So we call those pass-by trips. But they actually go into the site and on the driveway.
So when we look at impacts for driveways and such, we don't exclude the pass-by trips because those
physically are occurring. We eliminate those from concurrency, though, because those trips were already on
the road, and this site just removed them temporarily, and then they got back out on the road. So that's how
that's used.
And, again, Collier County has a limiting number on that. IT will typically have a higher value, and
Collier County will always limit those. And so we follow Collier County's guidelines on those limitations for
pass-by trips as well.
But -- so then we come up with a total net external. So that total net extemal is used just for what we
call a concunency review. A total external is used for the turn-lane sizing, that kind of thing, when we do our
analysis. So it gives you a little bit of a summary of things.
But a part of the distribution will look at an overall distribution of traffic, and then that will translate
into peak trips in different directions, and then we apply that on various tables on the links for the road
network as well.
So, in a surrunary, you know, the analysis you have in the Traffic Impact Statement has a lot more
details on tables and as such as all.
But one of the things that we identiff is that the project is in a transportation concurrency exception
area, so it is exempt from transportation concurrency; however, we've still done the analysis to show you that
there is not a concurrency issue with the project, but - to understand that, because the idea in these -- this
particular area is you want to promote these kind of projects to develop and as such, so you do have that
exception for this area. But, again, we still went ahead and did the analysis for you.
And we look at, you know, the background traffic. We looked up to 2021was the projection, and
looking at Tamiami Trail Eas! its peak hour volume that's going to be without the projects, where it's going
to be at, as well as Davis Boulevard, and these are just different links of the roadways as well.
And then we look at the future conditions of the roads. They'll remain as, basically, six-lane roads.
You've got the slightly wider section of Tamiami Trial as it gets into the city itself, but those are then the
peak-hour volumes of those roadways that exist out there.
Page 48 of67
February 1 5, 201 8
And in the end what happens is our -- the surrounding links will be operating at a satisfactory level of
service with or without the project. That's really the bottom line in the future when we added all the trips for
the project on there.
The project impacts, though, would be considered significant, because it would be above normally,
like, the 2 percent, and we give those values in the tables and the traffic study, but they're not adverse because
there's not -- we're not going below concurrency as a result ofthe project as well.
We are looking at consolidating the connections to the site. The existing site has about nine
driveways, and we're going to consolidate them to two driveways on Davis Boulevard ard two on U.S.4l.
We also propose to have interconnects to the adjacent sites, to the Trio site to the west there, aad we're hoping
to actually do a shared access with them as well as to further reduce driveway connections and then to the site
to the east as well when that is spurred for developmen! too.
We do look at - we've coordinated with the CAT fotks on transit stop accommodation as well and
proposed and coordinated with CAT too, and that really gets further defined when we do the site design.
And the left tum lane extensions, we anticipate having to do those. And they would normally be
reviewed at the time ofdevelopment order approval by the FDOT. The Florida DOT - both ofthese
roadways, Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41, are FDOT roadways, so we would submit to them any designs ard
traffic studies, and then they independently review that, and they'll apply their criteria whether or not we need
to do, say, right-tum lanes or left-hrm lane extensions.
We've done a preliminary review with them and met with them and provided them our preliminary
data ald then tll be able to just kind of go over what those results are.
But I think you may have seen - I car go over each of our access points here. On the Trail here with
the site, this is - so to the west ofus is the Trio site and what we're looking to coordinate, and I've just shown
this conceptually, is to consolidate our access. They're working on a separate access here, but the DOT
would prefer to see those consolidated.
So we would extend the left-in tum lane here, lengthen that tum lane up, and then provide access into
our site. And what you can see is, we provide more depth, what we call throating there to allow the traffic to
stack into our site, and we give our projected hrm movements, and this includes the Trio's traffic there as well
that we have.
So we'd have 85 left peak-hour tuming trips, and then for the right tum lane we'd have 68 trips and
then a bunch oftrips exiting as well. So that's the one access. And then we've another right-in, right-out
access on 4l as r.rell with Iesser trips.
And then on Davis Boulevard, we have a rightin, righlout tJrere on kind ofthe -- would be the
northwest comer ofthe site, and then on the east side ofthe site we'd have accesses in -- my next exhibit I'll
show a little better what things look like offsite, and that's what this shows here.
And I think I had one term; I called it dual left - it would be - it's -
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You called it proposed dual opposing single left directional
median.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. So what this is is it's an opposing left. What we're proposing
here -- so we'd have a left into our site here, and then we'd have what we call in common terms is a pork
chop, a divider island there, so tiat would prevent any left-outs of our site. But this would allow a left tum
U-tum or potentially this other site, if it develops, would have a left-in to its site as well.
But that's what we meant by dual opposing left tum lanes there, that that would be proposed - a
proposed improvement we would put out there as well, and that's what's shown. So we'd have a left-in, a
rightin, and a right-out there at that access point as well. And then we have this other left that would allow
for U-tum movements there, too. And, again, there would be, Iike, a physical barrier there to prevent our
vehicles fiom taking a left-out at that point as well.
So we're consolidating the tums. In the analysis, when we've looked at these preliminary numbers,
even though we see an interconnect here to the east -- and that will -- I would see would really be an
important item, especially on Commercial Drive since it has a signal here on 41 as well.
But we didnt count on that for the aaalysis that we've done. So conservatively we looked at all the
trips coming in and out ofour site extemally at these four - four points for the project.
Pase 49 of 67
February 15,2018
And then we made an assumption of consolidating our access with the Trio site, and we did include
their traffic numbers in what we've had in terms of their design that they've had.
So that's something we would look to coordinate with them and also with the DOT. This is probably,
really, typically a lot more detail than we would normally do at this point in time, but I think it provides some
help and guidance and understanding as far as that goes.
So, in conclusion, again, the project is exempt from concurrency, but we did still look at concurrency
nonetheless. And it's not an adverse traffic generator. The existing site drives are to be consolidated and
interconnection proposed as well. And the DOT will review and permit the project connections on 4l and
Davis Boulevard based on theirjurisdiction, and they'll determine the turn-lane requirements that we need to
do for the project.
Mitigation of impact is in the site improvements, the interconnection, and the payment of impact fees
for the project as well.
Okay. And with that, I'm available for any questions you might have.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. If you could --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: - go back to the first picture, please. You said something about shared
with Trio. Has Trio given you an okay that this is shared? And you said you combined the traffrc together?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: How many trips did they have without this?
MR. MULHERE: Atthat location.
MR. TREBILCOCK: At that location?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh.
MR.TREBILCOCK: Uh-huh. Goodquestion. Andlhavethatnumber. Ineedtojustruntomy
TIS real quick, because I have it specifically written there in the diagrams.
And maybe to answer your other question, we have been coordinating with them. There's no specific
agreement. But the FDOT requires shared driveways or interconnection of the site, so we're looking to work
together on this. And we've proposed this to really put everything on our site and provide that extra throating
and stuffthat I think would help allow vehicles to get offthe roadway more efficiently.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: So that's -- and really kind of incumber -- incumbers our site, but I think it's
beneficial from a traffic standpoint.
Okay. So let me get these numbers for you. Sorry. And I have an exhibit that shows their - okay.
Very nice.
Okay. So from -- for that particular access - and this comes from numbers from their traffic study
that they had prepared. Their site, say, for the 68 right-in movements, 15 of those would be from their site.
For the 85 left-in movements, l5 of those would be from their site. And then for the outbound movements, 26
of those trips would be from their site of the 2l l.
So we're, you know, more significant volume, but that's added into those total numbers that I
provided to you there. Okay?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they're just - their total -- what was their total p.m. peak
hour if it were a stand-alone at this point?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't recall. I just have it for that particular access because they do have
another access point where they're probably getting a lot of their trips from as well, so sorry I didn't have that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just a question.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it was good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you sure you're done now?
Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: The2017 AUIR for -- well, first of all, for -
MR. TREBILCOCK: This -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry?
Page 50 of67
February 15,2018
MR. TREBILCOCK: This is 2016 is what this was done on.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course, this is 2018 now. So my question is going to go to the
practical effect rather than whether you -- you know, whether you'd fall within exemptions or what the
situation was back when you did the --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get that.
On Davis, let's see, the p.m. peak between the Tamiami Trail and Airport is 1,550, and on Tamiami
from Davis to Airport is 1,700. So taking your 875 - and I realize that it's not an equal amount on Davis and
on the Tamiami, but for the ease of arithmetic for me, I split it in half. I've got 438 tips on one road and 438
trips on the other.
ln essence, what that means is, is that you're raising -- again, if my math is correct - the actual
conditions, the actual faffic conditions by 25 percent on Davis and by 20 percent on 41.
MR. TREBILCOCK: The amount of our tips for that link on Davis would be 142 peak hour.
Remember, we've got to do the peak hour and what we call peak direction as well, not -- we don't add both
directions in there, because we're looking at a peak direction on the AUIR.
So the number you had stated, we would add 142 to that, okay, and that would be the amount we're
adding to that link.
COMMISSIONERFRYER: Okay. And -
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- so the balance of the 875 is on the other?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. Then they get distributed throughout. The 875 is really not 875. It's the
adjusted numbers, because we have internal capture, because those trips aren't acfually occurring out there.
But in terms of the other links -- and this is the peak direction because, remember, some of your trips,
what they'll do, even on Davis, some of them are going to be going in the peak direction of the road, and then
some will be going not nonpeak direction. So the stuffthat's in the nonpeak don't get added to that peak
hour/peak direction trips, you know. So they tend to get reduced from that standpoint because you're really
looking at where - the estimated peak.
So your other peak directions, though, on Tamiami Trail, Davis to Airpo( that's 72 peak hour peak
trips from the project and then on Tamiami Trail between the Goodlette and Davis section, that's I 19 trips
we would be adding on the peak direction for that one, so...
Okay?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure I understand.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. It's in the tables in Table 6 of the study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The questions -- I'm going to pose mine in a different manner, but I think it
will answer yours.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: But I didn't want to -- yeah, I want to make sure everyone else has got -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only point that I was making on this is that - maybe my numbers
aren't exactly right, but the percentages are high what this is adding to these two streets. And this is only the
beginning of a much larger project that is particularly going to affect Tamiami Trail, if you look at the --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Only thing is, Ill just say the numbers you're adding are a bit on the
high side, because if you look at - if you really look at moving to the more curren! say, AUIR numbers, you
can use the numbers we provide in Table 6 and just add that - put those background volumes on there.
But our percentages in terms of impacts -- now, see, in terms of level of service of the
roadways -- are in the magnitud e of 2.5 to 5.3 percent level-of-service impacts is what we're looking at.
So that wouldn't change no matter what AUIR we're doing. The AUIR just means tha! hey, these
volumes, we're raising them up to this level here.
Now, when we did these projections, because we're using the 2016 atthe time, we still did - we did
a background traffic -- we'd raise the background taffic up a couple percent each year, or we'd look at the trip
bank, and I'd add the trip bank numbers, the greater of the two, because we really want to look and, you
know, to grow it to a reasonable high level.
Page 51 of67
February 15,2018
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll listen to your answer to the Chairman's question, but just the last
thing I want to say is -
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- I know you're in compliance with the various exemptions that are
available -
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: - and the capacity numbers that exist at the present time; I see that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it seems to me that we need to at least take a count of what's going
to be available for subsequent developers and developments. This is going to be more than just the tip of an
iceberg at the mini-triangle, and that was the only point I was going to make.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else ontraffic before I -- okay, Norm --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let me back up on a couple things you said so I understand it a little bit
better.
The picture that's on there now, you said you're going to potentially have a joint agreement with the
Trio project.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that you're going to move the left-hand turn lane down to line up with
that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Currently their -- they have a submittal into the FDOT to have a turn
lane -- their turn lane and access right here, and then they provide interconnection to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is theirs approved by the DOT?
MR. TREBILCOCK: To my knowledge, it is not. In coordinating with the FDOT, they've gone
through some reviews with them, but I don't believe they have an issuance of a permit at this point from the
FDOT.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, if the DOT approves theirs --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: - then you wouldn't get one, would you, in that location?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it wouldn't be to that location; however, in terms of even our own
coordination with them is we could modify theirs and -- what we were shown is theirs possibly going
through, and then we would come back and extend the turn lane and make a similar connection, and then
theirs would go away, and they would just have an interconnect to our site. That was the proposal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the DOT --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, they require an interconnection for them. So if they didn't -- weren't
willing to do - to allow their access to, say, be displaced to our site, then they would just need to provide an
interconnection from us to their site, and so then all our traffrc would stream into their site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then how would that change the road impacts in other issues
that you've utilized in this TIS based on turn lane being in alignment with your site?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Good question.
What we would do, then, in that case, we would have to look to modiff that turn lane or identifo if it
has sufficient capacity or if we could go back to the west end of that turn lane and modi! it to get any
extended queue that's needed to stack our site making a left into the site. And then the only realistic loss, and
that's why our site plan made sense to me, is there's less throating that they can provide on their site for the
traffic coming in.
Bu! you know, the DOT would typically look to review and approve this. They may, though, you
know, look at -- you know, they would probably encourage going to the design that we're providing here.
Bu! you know, at the very leas! they'll require them to make an interconnection, because they wouldn't allow
two accesses to be that close to each other.
Page 52 of 67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Something you said earlier about the standards you used for this project,
and that was that the pass-by rate and internal capture rate, the county formulas were what you used to -- does
the DOT have formulas for pass-by and internal capture?
MR. TREBILCOCK: When they look at it -- yeah, they'll independently look at it. What they'll
typically, though, allow and accept is the county's, because the county values tend to be lower. The county's
more conservative, and they'll accept them.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you used the more conservative numbers just in the case that the DOT
would need it?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct exactly, for both agencies.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Then when the DOT requires deceleration lanes for right-ins, why
didn't you use the more conservative approach to that?
MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Supplying decel lanes for right turns into the project.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Again, because based on the volumes and coordinating with the -- we're not
within the threshold of requiring a turn lane.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: For the DOT?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But forthe countyyou are.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the county -- the county standard, though, doesn't apply here because it's
a DOT roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, then neither -- but okay. But you just said you used the most
conservative between the DOT's internal capture and pass-by in the county's, and you chose the county's
because it is more conservative. But in this case you're picking and choosing to use the most
nonconservative --
MR. TREBILCOCK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- because the DOT is double what the county requires for the turn-lane
access.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, because --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I thought they were 80 and we're 40.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. And, actually - and I'll correct myself there, too, because when I had
told you 40 for, say, a right turn lane, actually, for a divided highway in Collier Coun!, Collier County
always warrants a right turn lane on a divided highway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's even more conservative. That's --
MR. TREBILCOCK: There's -- that's how they do it. But what you have to do is you have to
respect the agency that has that facility, because if you look on U.S. 41 and, say, this section of 41, you'll see
that the standard isn't to have turn lanes. Even within the city's boundaries, if you look at the length of U.S.
4l within the city, it's a small percentage of tum lanes that are there, and the - a good percentage of those that
are there tend to be on public road connections.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I can assume when you come back in two weeks you can show us
somewhere else in the city where this kind of intensity is utilized and they're not using those right-turn decel
lanes. I mean, because if you are, you better tell Eric and everybody else, because nobody knows anyvhere
else in the county this occurs.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I can tell you right now. Northbound on U.S. 41 at Golden Gate Parkway.
Much more intense --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a road to road, though.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Road -- well, that's a lot more intensive, and that is no right tum lane, no
northbound right tum lane there. I mean, I'll just tell you right offthe bat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the traffic counts on that? That's Fleischmann Boulevard, two-lane
road?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, not it would b
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, Golden Gate Parkway north of -
Page 53 of67
February 15,2018
MR. TREBILCOCK: It would be U.S. 41 and Golden Gate Parkway. So we're talking six-by-six
roadways. You know, so, you know, there's no northbound right turn lane there.
If you look at -- along the 5.6 miles of U.S. 41 within the City of Naples, there's - I believe there's
probably a dozen or so right turn lanes that exist, and there's probably 180 driveway connections along that
roadway. So it's a small percentage. So we're consistent.
And - but we would certainly follow anything. Because, again, when you look at an urban design,
there's different philosophies. You know, Collier County is -- we're a very suburban design. So you want to
promote higher -- you know, you want to promote the capacity and issues, but the converse is you have
higher operating speeds. You're allowing the cars to exit and quickly get offthe roadway.
In this mixed-use design, you're trying to create some more pedestrian-friendly environment and
stuff So you actually create a little bit more friction on the roadway for folks to get off the roadway.
So that's why you'll notice on Davis Boulevard between 41 and Airport Road, I believe there's just
one tum - one right turn lane in that whole section of roadway for all those driveways along there. Similarly,
along this section, too, there's minimal numbers of tum lanes that you see there.
And, again, what you tend to do is have lower operating speeds. And that actually may be a part of
the intention, so -- because when you create a lot of turn lanes and accesses, which I do like, you know, for
capacrty of my mainline roadway, people will whip offthat roadway a lot quicker, you know. So we're trying
to balance it but we'd certainly do the turn lanes if required by them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is this -- the roadways that were shown here intemal to the
project are they considered driveways?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, yeah. They always consideq exactly, a driveway connection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then my prior statement asking for where the intensity of
interconnecting road -- interconnecting situations like this where we have a no right turn lane, and used
Golden Gate Parkway as an example of this, one right-of-way to another right-of-way, do you have any
instances where the intensity as high as this, 875, trips per day, where the right turn lanes don't exist or do
exist -- don't exist where they have that kind of capacity? This is a - this is a substantial project.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Sure. No, I understand that. It does get distributed. So what I'd need to
look at is really the amount of right-turning vehicles, which in this case would be 68 right-turning vehicles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's above the county's threshold but below the DOT's?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Conect exactly. So what I could do is look for a situation where I'd estimate
that to be the case, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thinkthat would help bufferyour argument --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - thatthis is acceptable.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. If we get in - let's get into your TIS, and this may start working
towards Ned's question and hopefully help clarifi it.
Table 3, which is on Page 8 of your TIS. Now, there was another plan that wasn't colored that
seemed to have a perspective of this. I think it's the one below this. Maybe you could use that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Let me see. I can get there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Over on the left, if you click on the left side, on No. 8. Do you see No. 8
over on the left? You're going - you're circling them. There you go. There you go.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thanks. I need help.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you hit "play," you'll get a bigger picture, orjust open the full screen.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. There we go.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: With all the calculations you do, boy, electronic, you and Bob are having
fun today.
MR. TREBILCOCK: And what was the page of the TIS you said?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 8, and it's your Table 3.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with the roadway linlq Tamiami Trail East/U.S. 41.
Page 54 of67
February 15,2018
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're talking about - that's from Goodlette Road to Davis Boulevard.
You have entering southbound, 119. Where did -- how -- what entrance are we talking about on this plan?
And where is the 119 in comparison to this table, Table 3?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. That would actually be the volume on the link, so that's not on this
map itself. So from Goodlette to Davis is actually a link volume, and then that volume could potentially be
split by the number of access -- you know, so that traffic is between Goodlette and Davis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this says p.m. peak hour, project traffic, so --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And it says entering. So it's not entering because it doesn't reach the
project.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. I'm sorry.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it stops priorto Davis.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. That's linkage traffic that is going to enter tle project, okay. So in
other words, that I 19 would be split between tlre -- the two -- let me see. The two --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Point to them on this map so we know what we're talking about. So you're
going east on Tamiami Trail. You're -
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, you're over here. You're offthe map a little bit -
TI{E COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Raise your hands again like that. She was talking about that during break,
so I have to -- you did just what you said you would do. Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Where's my little arrow at? Bob?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, he'll draw lines. Be careful.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So, Chairman Strain, when we talk about that entering volume, it's
coming in that similar direction --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- and it's on that link. And then what it will do is then that traffic will split.
Some of it will be left-in and come in here.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's -- but you've got 2l I there, don't you?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. So that -- no. That's exiting. That's exiting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Where's -- your entering is 85, right?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to correlate this map to that table. So if the entering going
southbound is 85 and you've got I19, what am I missing?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Then you have some -- remember, some of that traffic is going to take
a left and come in offof Davis as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is southbound entering, so it didn't mean southbound. It could be
eastbound.
MR. MULFDRE: It's southbound on 41. You know, it would be southbound/eastbound.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So if we were to try to figure out how much that is, it would be I 19
less 85 but plus 35, or 70 up above. So you've got 70 up above, 85, it's 150 - that's more.
You see your two right-ins on Davis? So if you're getting the traffic and you're pulling the traffic off
southbound 4l to your two rights up on the north side and your one left on the south side, wouldn't you add
those up to see if it matches the total traffic coming in?
MR. MULHERE: It includes Trio.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, that includes Trio. So -- I'm sorry. Okay. So let's do that. No, we're
good. Perfect.
Thank you, Bob.
Page 55 of67
February 15,2018
I'll show you something. Let's see if this all --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do we get one of these tables to reflect Trio if that's going to have
to -- if that's the only way we're going to be able to follow it? I mean, that doesn't -- why would you do this
for your project, the faffic that flows through your project but only give us your project when it's -- you're
going to be accepting both?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. What we did -- okay. So 85 - remember, that 85 is us and Trio. Trio is
l5 of those trips. We're 70 ofthem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So that's why -- where you get the 85 from.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Uh-huh. And the 235's up top. There's 140. You've got 119.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Now, the 119 is for concurrency purposes, okay. So these numbers
would be higher because I did not subtract out the pass-by because we're -- in this purpose in the site access,
we're looking at trips, and I didn't deduct the pass-by.
Now, we deduct the pass-by from the concurrency analysis, okay, because those are trips that are
already on the roadway network. And so that's a lesser value. So to your poing though, like what we're
getting is, say, 70 plus the 35 plus the 35, that's 140. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right.
MR. TREBILCOCK: But then when we deduct for the concurrency, that's where we get down to the
1 19. So that's how you get a total value.
I can show you a map that kind of shows tha! if you want, the differences. Because I get your point
you know, confusion.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, it's kind of hard to follow your TIS when the maps that you provide
us don't give you the numbers to follow. I think that's part of where probably Ned was trying to figure out
how your numbers got there.
For example, )ou've got on northbound l42Tamiami Trail East. Now, this is after they leave Davis
and 4l , so the two have merged together, and you've got 142 going north, but you already got 211 coming out
of the south side. I don't know what you're going to have going -- you've got 41 going west on the north side,
so that's 252. So you're 10 off there. So is that -
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. But you're going to lose -- some of those folks will be doing a u'ey at the
intersection to come back the other direction, because we're not giving, like, a fulImedian opening there, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I said, there's 41 of them doing a u'ey.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, yeah, so...
CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Your numbers still don't match up.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right" but they wouldn't with the -- because what we're doing there is we're
comparing the concurrency with the separate - this is a separate analysis. This is site access, okay. So when
we do site access, we're not using the concurency data for that. We're using the values without the pass-by
trips subtracted out. The concurrency analysis does subtract outthe pass-by values.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: You know the term "rubber meets the road"?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one of these is rubber meeting the road?
MR. TREBILCOCK: This is the -- site access is rubber meeting the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one: The picture in front of us?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: The one in our Table 3?
MR. TREBILCOCK: The site access would be the appendix you also have. In the study that we
provided to you, there's appendices that give you all the tuming movements, and then we show the Trio
traffic separately from ours. This has them all -- this has consolidated traffic but, again, there's two
operations that we do.
When we do concurrency, we subtract out intemal capture and pass-by, okay. When we do site
access analysis, we're looking specifically at that location, and we do not subtract out the pass-by trips, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: When you talk about Davis Boulevard, U.S. 41 to Airport Road eastbound,
Page 56 of67
February 15,2018
142 on exit, you show 203 or -- yeah, 206 on your two entrances up on top. Why is there a difference there
then? Is that -- it seemed to be one of the simpler ones, but apparently it's not.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. No, exactly. Because there, again, when you're looking at Table 3,
we're taking out the pass-by values. When we're looking at the site access, we're not subtracting out the
pass-by values. Because what -- as you said, this is the rubber-hits-the-road drawing.
And what the DOT wants and what the county wants is they want to see what are you guys doing at
the access in terms of cars moving in and out.
Now, again, this is more for a PUD planning study. When we actually submit for development order
approval, that's when these get galvanized interms olapproved, and that's where we submit a permit to the
FDOT, and they determine whether or not we should put a turn lane in here in that case, and look at, like, the
case, like you said about Trio's. Hey, what if they don't combine there.
So we'd look at that situation and determine where we're at and then make an appropriate decision on
whether or not, say, a tum lane is needed there or not, you know, so...
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at that south entrance that has a left tum lane in --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN; -- but look at the right turn lane. The right turn lane in is 68, it looks like.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that right?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Does that include Trio?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, it does. There were l5 of those trips. We're 53.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Trio's going to - if you had -- if that 68, because of a mixed change on
Trio climbs to 80, you've got to put a right turn lane on your property?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Not yet. It's 85, but, yeah, you know, so if we did -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, now it's 85? You told me yesterday - two days ago it was 80.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Did I -- I thought it was 85. And there's actually a range that they use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we talked about it Tuesday, but that's -- if it's 85, then what happens
if you hit 85 --
MR. TREBILCOCK: My apologies. Let me just get tha! because -- sorry about that. I have it in
the report. I just - but if it reaches -- I'm sorry. I stand correct. You're right. It's 80 to 125 is the range that
they use. What they do is they look at that range and they make a judgment of whether this should have a
right turn. It's -- just because it hits 80 doesn't mean they say that you're going to have to do a right turn lane.
They'll make a judgment call on that as the permitting agency in this area.
But I'm sorry. But you were correct. It was 80; 80 to 125 is the range.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: If Trio comes back in and says, you know, I've got three acres, and the
project next door got 75 units per acre so, therefore, I can ask for 75 uniS per acre, and he doesn't want
to -- and he wants to do a PUD and comes back in with225 units, how will that affect that 68 entry points?
And, see, it's things like that --
MR. TREBILCOCK: That's a good point.
CHARMAN STRAIN: We're not asking - apparently you're basically -- your position is you're not
going to do tum lanes at this stage, but yet if you build your building, then we've got a constrained highway,
we can't ever ask you for the tum lanes. So I'm trying to anticipate what the worst-case scenario is because,
honestly, ifyour project gets approved, that's going to be a basis for other projects.
And so the intensity could easily change on the Trio project as well as plenty of stuffto the east.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. You make a good point. And what we need to do when we're doing this
is, these things go on together timing-wise. So what we would do -- when we get ready to go to the next
stage to actually go to construction, we need to veriff that - whether that tum lane is needed, and then that
would cause an adjustment as -- if that turn lane is necessitated. So that's a good point you make.
So we don't work in vacuums in terms of the different disciplines that we're working on this project
with. And it's just understood that we've got to work with the DOT. So that's why we simultaneously did
coordinate with them on, hey, here's the preliminary layout of the project, and this is even the consolidation
Page 57 of 67
February 15,2018
concept for this other, bu! you know, you make an excellent point that, hey, what if that adjacent project gets
more intensive because we are doing a shared drive.
So we want to make sure that we're working with them, and then we can accommodate that furn lane.
And we'd need to. We'd have to, to your point.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And the only this is, your buildings are built preffy close to the road, so I
don't know how you'd give up that much room and still provide sidewalks from the cross-sections you
showed, which means by using that entry you're restricting the development on the project to the west,
because if they do too much that triggers the right turn lane, you can't put it in because it's a constrained
roadway. That's going to present a series of problems, so...
MR. TREBILCOCK: Not necessarily. I believe there was a little bit more room on that side of our
project. I think the constraint, 1zou're right, is on Davis Boulevard. There's a lot - there's a lot less buffer
distance there. Bu! you know, depending on that requirement, it may or may not. And, again, that agency is
key, because, again, they do have a range of that, because what they do look like is, you know, a big part of it
is driver expectation. And along this segment of roadway, the series of driveways, you don't have right turn
lanes, so there isn't quite that same expectation.
And you -- you know, you slip in a turn lane -- you know, again, deceptively, we think we're
improving safety and operations but not necessarily always, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Let's move --
MR. MULI{ERE: I just want to - for the record, Bob Mulhere. I just want to clarifo this Trio
project isn't three acres; it's 1.99.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I thought you said three earlier.
MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's two acres. It's 150 --
MR. MULI{ERE: So any - God bless anybody who wants to go through the process we went
through for the last year-and-a-half of Comp Plan amendment and LDC amendment and MPUD rezone and
come in and ask for anything they want. But that's not what they've chosen to do at this point in time.
They've gone through the by-right allowed SDP process and maximized their intensity on that site, which
they should be able to do. So, you know, we're trying to work with them, and they're working with us.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Bob, all I'm trying to do is find out if you guys are trying to not provide the
right turn lanes, that we've got a reasonable expectation that they're not going to - that the situation's going to
stay as you say it is, and it's not going to get worse. That's what I'm worried about.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand. And, again, that's what we've looked to do, and that's why
we coordinated with the agencies to determine what requirements they would anticipate, and that's why we
do that preliminary coordination with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: On Page 10, did you look at that discrepancy I pointed out when we met on
Tuesday? And did you find a resolution to it?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, thank you. What it was is the upper portion, that's reflective of FDOT
data that they use. So that was -- the intention there was just to show that the DOT's data is showing a decline
in their ADT, but their - so their dataset would be slightly different than the city's. And so the lower table is
city collected ADT data.
So what we did, though, when we did the concurency analysis, we used the city's values that
actually were -- resulted in a higher. But the purpose of that paragraph above was just to demonstrate that in
fact, there was a negative in the traffrc growth during that period of time, although we still did a positive
traffic growth in the future. So that's the reason for the difference, so, you know, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 13, your site access tum lane - by the way, Ned, did the
explanation of that traffrc flow on those streets get to your question, or did it confuse it even more?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Confused it somewhat more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. Well, that's all right.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I think what happens is your documents provide a lot of
information, and for those of us that aren't trained in traffic analysis, I think it's hard to understand how the
Page 58 of67
February 15,2018
numbers match up when you use different numbers on some of your renderings versus the tables you
produce.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, I see your point. I do. I do understand that. And I'm -- you know, I
can adjust to clarifr that for you. Again, they have different purposes, but I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your site access tum analysis, the first paragraph on Page 13 under that
header says, connections to the site are proposed as follows. Can you walk us through those connections and
show us where they are?
I think the proposed dual left directional median is the one I'm kind of wondering where that is.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Here we go. Connection to the site. Okay. So the north entrance,
that's -- so this one, that's a right-in, right-out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Directional left.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Directional -- oh, I'm sorry. Rightin, right-out, directionalmedian left-in,
correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the one that's going to have an increased stacking lane to
accommodate both projects, assuming you use that common entrance.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Absolutely. So the left-in that we're showing, that's 85 trips, and that's us and
Trio, the right-in is 68 trips, and then the right-out is the 2l 1 trips. Okay. So that's that one.
Then the southern access, that's down here, all righ! and that's just a right-in, rightout. So we're
showing l7 right-in trips -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: - and2l right-outtrips there. Okay.
Then on Davis Boulevard, the westem access, here, is just a rightin. That's the 35, and then the
right-ou! 103 trips. Okay.
And then the eastern one, this is a right-in, the 35; right-ou! is 103. And this is where I had my
language a little bit that would be -- it would be opposing left so -- oh, what did we do there?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you're not going to have dual lefu.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correc! yeah. It's dual opposing lefu. I'm sorry. Like right now there's no
left there, so we'd put in a left-in - a left here for a U-fum, you see, and then we've got a left into our site, and
then we have, like, a pork chop, so it's opposing lefu.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. But there's no dual lefts?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's what I was -- so that's --
MR. TREBILCOCK: You're right, yes.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thankyou.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's what I was trying to get at.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I think my language is inconect there the way I presented thaq yep. But
they're opposing lefts, like you said. Okay. So that's 13.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And you did -- in the other analyses that go on, you actually get into
the fact you don't believe the dedicated .ight turn lanes are warranted at the various locations, and we've
already talked about that. That's --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. That's using DOT -- and, again, this is planning level, so we're
not -- and we're not saying they won't be. It's -- they get finalized at the point of site development approval.
But we wanted to give you conceptually we're not meeting their warranty. And so it just kind of gives you an
idea thag hey, it's not necessary here, and consistent with the other projects along the east corridor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And now I'd like to take a look at the questions posed by the city.
Have you -- you're familiar with them, I believe?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes,I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: They just completed their mobility study, and this is where they're talking
about -- oh, this is talking about the dual lefts, I believe. It's the first one that - the city urges - strongly
urges the county to apply a conservative approach to the traffrc analysis to minimize the chance of level of
Page 59 of67
February 15,2018
service failure at any point during the year ofthe project.
Yeah, it's the issue with the right turn lanes. We've already kind of talked about that, so -
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, we're --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sidewalks we talked about while you were on vacation this morning.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And then the -- that's -- the second part there, that's about the dual turn
lanes.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: YCP.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Andthen aboutthe -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: The transit bus, we talked about that. The guy was here this morning.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay, good. That covers it, then, I think.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so. Just let me make sure we've got it all. Okay. I think we have.
Anybody else have any questions that they'd like to ask?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a comment, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. Yes, ma'am.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: When you - not knowing the Trio project and this and everything else,
to me it looked like a shell game. I mean, you're just kind of moving things around, and trying to understand
this is very difficult, Norm.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's why I was wondering if Trio -- and you said, "I combined
them." We didn't really know that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand. I don't show it here, but actually in the appendix I did - and
I'll look to clear that up for you-all. I understand. It's tough for you because there's a lot of technical
information we're throwing, and I understand your points. You're trying to use some of the data over here
that really isn't the same as over here. So, you know, maybe what we do is create an exhibit so you guys can
add the numbers up better and they can make more sense to you. I get your points, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you do any work in the City of Naples?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I misspoke when I looked at the first question they asked. It was on
a separate email by itself, and I'll read most of it to you.
There are concems as to the density of the project and traffic impacts, particularly upon U.S. 4l and
intersecting streets within downtown Naples.
The typical method is to consider a new project for the average time of year or l00th, 200th highest
hour. To do this, standard adjustments are made.
The city just completed a downtown mobility study that determined seasonal traffrc conditions were
20 percent higher than FTOD (sic) standards.
So the city, for planning purposes, has been looking at peak season and maintaining levels of service
during that particular time. Are they doing that currently?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, they are not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: This is -- again, that was a particular study, a particular snapshot but their
Comp Plan doesn't require that analysis. And you can see he's not saying they're doing that there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. Perfect. Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to understand.
So this TIS that you've done for us is comparable to the type of TIS you do for the city then?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So if - technically, then, we're following their standards?
MR. TREBILCOCK: We're consistent with them, definitely, yes.
Page 60 of67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That's important.
MR. TREBILCOCK: h my opinion and belief, exactly. They - they'll tend to use -- just so you
understand, they'll use, like, two-way traffrc, and that's why I was splitting it to do, like, a single directional.
But it's the same concept and the same levels of stuff. And, you know, they had that particular mobility
study, but that's not -- hasn't been adopted into their Comp Plan in terms of how you do level-of-service
analysis at all, you know.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I'm glad you showed up.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're confusing, but you helped.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. And I'll look to clean up a couple of items that you-all
have said, too, okay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we are going to
MR. TREBILCOCK: My TIS will be about 10 pages longernow, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: We are going to come back in two weeks to finish this up because we were
given some new information that the vision -- the new vision statement that's probably going to have to have
some regulatory language added to make sure we're getting that, but that's all the stuffwe're going to
probably work on over the next couple weeks and come back and finally discuss it and finish it the first
meeting in March, the way it looks.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from staffs perspective, I think that's it. There's no - okay.
Now, do we have any registered public speakers, Ray?
And then the public speakers, for those of you that are patiently waiting here, the room is just full.
Feel free to address any of the three issues that we've -- in discussions today.
Go atread, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Katie Cole.
MS. COLE: Good afternoon. My name's Katie Cole with the law firm of Hill, Ward, Henderson,
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 800, Clearwater, Florida. So I appreciate your time today.
I represent Crown Castle International, who is the tenant of the county's for the wireless
telecommunications tower that is on site on this property. And there was a question by Mr. Dearbom earlier
about that tower being relocated. And the staffreport indicates it's being relocated.
Early last year, Crown Castle began discussions with tlre county about the county's proposed
termination of Crown Castle's lease. There has been no agreement to date to terminate that lease.
So when we found out about this hearing and that the rezoning was moving forward on Sunday night
when we happened to be perusing the agendas, it obviously caused concern, because the MPUD and the
Growth Management Plan will create a nonconforming use for the tower.
And while there are provisions in the wireless communications code that allow for some changes in
addition of antennas and modification of antennas to be made, the age of this tower sometimes requires
structural changes, which is clearly prohibited in the nonconforming use provision of the code.
So while the lease has certain provisions about the landlord preceding with a rezoning, which would
negatively impact the tenant -- and those are discussions that we'll have outside of this arena -- without
waiving any of those rights, I would respectfully request that this board recommend including in the list of
permitted uses a provision to allow this tower to remain as a conforming use temporarily until the lease
expires or until it is terminated by mutual agreement as provided for in the lease.
So - and I do know there are a lot of other lease negotiation discussions that have occurred where I
have not been privy to. I know Mr. Starkey has been. There is a disagreement about what the appropriate
buy-out should be. But in light of this, my client did send communication to the county yesterday, Tuesday,
Page 6l of 67
February 15,2018
reflecting the fact that Crown Castle's very willing to enter into an agreement to terminate to facilitate this
redevelopment. It just needs to be an appropriate number. And we look forward to continuing those
conversations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you mentioned possibly adding this as a temporary permitted use by
right to avoid the nonconformity?
MS. COLE: If that would be the appropriate place to do it, yes.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I'm just thinking there might be another option. If the issue is that
under the nonconforming standards you can't structurally alter the tower, maybe we just need to look at a
deviation to that nonconforming standard. So should things like that be needed while that tower is still there
and not moved, something like -- if that's the appropriate way to handle it. Do you have know -- any ideas,
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. In the past when PUDs are proposing new uses
different than the base zoning allows and the base zoning uses are in place, we've had a provision to allow
those base zoning - existing base zoning uses to exist until such time as there's a change in ownership and/or
that the building permits are being issued for the new use, and then there would be a relocation or demolition
of those old existing uses.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I think what they're saying, though, is they can't -- in order for them to
move and relocate, it's going to take a certain amount of time possibly and processes to get there. So if we
just provide some language that says that they have to move when the new buildings are ready to be built and
they've not got a new place to go, that might be problematic then, so...
MR. BELLOWS: Well, a change of ownership, that would mean they've divested their interest in
the property.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unless -- a change of ownership forthe project would mean that it's
just assignable. They probably have a lease that's assignable, and that would go with the properfy.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know what needs to be worked out, but between now and the
next time we come back, I ask that you get together whatever parties are involved and let's get something
included in the next rendition that comes to us on the first meeting in March, which is March lst and try to
resolve the issue.
MS. COLE: Yes. We would like to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate you highlighting it to us. We'll do what we can.
Anybody? Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Cole, I read in the materials that we were provided a reference to
another communications tower southeast of this location on Kirkwood, I believe. Is that your client's
leasehold down there, too?
MS. COLE: It is, yes, sir. And that is actually the tower that is being proposed to be reconstructed to
accommodate the tenants that are on this tower.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. Would combining the communications capability of both towers
to one location, in any respect, degrade service to the residents?
MS. COLE: Potentially, yes, and I believe that's the crux of the negotiation issue.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: Wouldn't you need the fee simple owner of the propefty to agree and acquiesce as
to what you're asking for as far as the rights and use of the property?
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: That's what we're -- that's what they're going to -- supposed to come back
with.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the county --
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the mike, Heidi.
MS. ASFION-CICKO: The CRA is the owner, the Collier County CRA, and it's under contract by
the applicant.
MS. COLE: The county CRA is the owner of the property that consented -- I presume, provided
Page 62 of 67
February 15,2018
owner's consent to this application. They are also the landlord and have obligations under the lease to Crown
Castle. So they have two roles in this.
MR. EASTMAN: One of which, I think, would be to request what the future zoning should be as
opposed to the tenant doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean as far as the -- right now the future zoning allows the
communications tower, and I think what we're saying is the tower owners will get together with the future
owners of the property once the contracts are completed and arrange for having language added to the PUD,
either a permanent or temporary basis, for communication towers to be there. I think that's the solution,
right?
MR. MULIfiRE: Well, actually before the contracts are completed. We actually need to resolve
this issue now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that requires the current owner to be part of that process.
MR. EASTMAN: Amen.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It will have to be resolved in one of two ways. One is that the tower is
allowed as an interim permitted use until a building permit is issued for the mini-triangle project or, when it
goes to the Board of County Commissioners, the issue needs to be resolved and they have to have a
termination agreement that both parties are in agreement to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how long is the remaining time on the lease?
MS. COLE: 2024.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You guys are going to move, I hope, faster than that. Is
that -- you're in one piece of the overall picture. So maybe that piece could be the last phase instead of an
early phase, and that would help provide some extra time.
MS. COLE: I think from a timing standpoinl I became engaged in the project to facilitate the
relocation and the permitting of the new tower. Unforhrnately, in Octobel communications at -- there was a
meeting with Crown Castle and the county in October, and since then -- at that meeting, the county was
unhappy with Crown Castle's financial request, and until this week there had not been additional
communication from the county to Crown Castle about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Jerry?
MR. STARKEY: Jerry Starkey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you swear in?
MR. STARKEY: No,I haven't been swom in.
The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affrmative.)
MR. STARKEY: So we've been dealing with Crown since we began and notified Crown at the time
that we won the RFP. We've been in discussions with the county. Nick Casalanguida has been representing
the county, the CRA, and Crown, and ourselves as the contact purchaser.
We're really -- Crown owns the site on Kirkwood that they would like to move the tower to. The
county has worked with Crown to facilitate a re-permitting or permitting of a new tower that would replace
the existing tower at Kirkwood and the tower at the triangle, and we simply are negotiating the economics.
And so the parties have been engaged. It got offtrack a bit with the hurricane because of the
county's -- was really focused on a lot of other things a few months later. But I think we will reach an
agreement or buy subject to it and figure out what to do later.
But I think the goal is to reach an agreement. And I don't -- I don't see any reason why we can't. But
that's not to say, you know, we agree to the numbers, because there is an economic disconnect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And my concern from the land use perspective is that by the next
meeting you at least reach some agreement to provide something so that however this tower works out in the
meantime, it's not got a problem.
MR. STARKEY: Right. And I think that her -- excuse me. The request for a temporary ability to
change the structure or whatever, you know, probably is fine with us. First we've heard of the request, but
that would enable the tower to stay while we move forward and then, ultimately, hopefully we reach an
agreement on the economic relocation.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We'll look forward tothe lst. Thankyou.
Page 63 of 67
February 15,2018
MS. COLE: Thankyouvery much.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, sir. Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you use the word "code," are you talking about the
Collier County tower code?
MS. COLE: Yes, sir, and the nonconforming use code.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does that tower code still require ayearly, or every two
years, a formal report to be submitted on the status of the tower?
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I don't think we took that out. Remember we added it when that one tower
collapsed, and I don't think it's been taken out.
Do you know, Ray?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you bring a copy of the latest report?
MS. COLE: I will certainly find out if that's been recorded and what it is, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they should be filed with us as required. So somewhere, if that exists,
we should have it.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Even if it was, like, eight years ago?
MS. COLE: I'll request it.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Are there any other speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, there's only one other person sitting in the audience that's not part of
the applicant's team. If tlrere's no other speakers, if anybody else would like to speak on this issue, please
come on up.
There isn't any, so with that, I think we're finished up here, Bob. Is there anything you want to wrap
up before we go into a continuance discussion real quick?
MR. MULHERE: I just want to express our appreciation for the time that you've put into this. We
understand there's a lot of issues and moving parts, and we're anxious to continue to work with you to resolve
this. We'll be prepared with those issues for the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And any comments from the Planning Commission before we -- go
ahead, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: The overriding concem that I mentioned at the beginning of my
comments had to do with achieving a sense of what I believe are the expectations that this would be -- and lll
use the expression without asking that it be put into the ordinance -- but high-end first-class.
And I can see myself getting more comfortable with all of the uses that we may end up approving if
there's stronger language of some kind that points to an objective that fulfills the expectations for a premiere,
or whatever you want to call ig a leading kind of a development.
And I would suggest to you the following. And I took the first sentence of your Exhibit A, and I
rewrote it to make it sort of an undertaking. And it would read, the mini-triangle MPUD will be an atfractive
catalyst project designed to spark further redevelopment in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area.
And I don't think that's as strong as first-class and the other, high-end. But I believe when you word
it in terms of an undertaking, it would give subsequent people something to hang their hat on. And so --
MR. MULFIERE: We don't disagree with that. That's absolutely our intent.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you accept that language?
MR. MULI{ERE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, without -- I mean, that's preffy ambiguous language in
regards to who can interpret it. And the bottom line is, if we don't attach it to regulatory standards, it's
meaningless.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I am wanting to do that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: StAN?
Page 64 of 67
February 15,2018
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's the Potter Stewart definition of attractive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the what?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Potter Stewart definition of attractive.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: You know it when you see it.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know it when I see it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we had - before we moved forward, I would want to -- I have to
echo what Ned just said, because I mentioned to you guys Tuesday, the big elephant in the room for me is
you've got to somehow convince us you're going to do what you said you're going to do.
And normally we attach those kinds of drawings to the PUD, and we lock it in. And it doesn't mean
it's conceptual and you can go from the stories and buildings you show down to a -- you know, an apartment
building with a bowling alley.
I keep saying that because that's still some of the uses. So we've got to get beyond that, and that's
what we're looking for on the firs! so...
MR. MLILI{ERE: And we attempted to do that by suggesting there be at least two multi-story
buildings. You know, our intent is to build three. But we do need some flexibility.
Those are conceptual. We might be able to accomplish everything in two buildings. And the third
building, whether it gets built or no! we don't know, or maybe it's seven stories or eight stories.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we're making progress, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah,l agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just need to get it tightened up so that when stafflooks at it it's not
ambiguous. Because they're going to look at it black and white. You can do this or can't do this.
MR. MULIIERE: I got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I just want to get there.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My language is not a total fuq but I earnestly hope to see it in two
weeks.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I just want -- I have the same concems with the matrix,
conversion matrix.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked.
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Because of what it could end up being if something happens. You
could have workforce housing to an unlimited number of dwelling units and a car dealership, or -- and that's
not --
MR. MULI{ERE: We're subjectto -
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No one expects that. No one expects that, really. There
are - people along the Trail in some communities are looking for a high-end destination, and that's what they
think - that's why nobody's in here, because I don't think they understand what could happen if they actually
read this.
MR. MULI{ERE: That's what we're going to build. You know, you have to think, there's a lot of
zoning documents out there, and this is always a challenge is ensuring that the intent is what you get. I
understand that. In this one, I think we've gone fuither than anybody has to ensure that - what you're going
to get.
You know, you have significant architectural standards that will apply to us. Okay. We haven't got
there yet. I hearthat. I understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you haven't gone further than anybody has. We, a lot of times, have
diagrams, concept plans, pictures like you're showing as backup to what the developer says he's going to do.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and that's what we submitted. We have those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but your language doesn't match that. That's the piece. That's
what - so generally we'll attach that stufi see Exhibit A or something like tha! and it will be something that's
reflective of what we expect the project to appear like. We're not there yet. That's the piece that I think is the
problem. And I think you can work on that and we can get there, but it doesn't --
MR. MULHERE: But you generally have to be consistent with those concept plans that you see.
You generally have to be consistent with that. Yeah, you can change the designs -
Page 65 of67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But look at your generalities: 100 units or 30,000 square feet. That's a far
cry from what was on those plans. That will never get us that picture.
MR. MULI{ERE: That's about 50 percent, because when we went in, it was 200 units and 74,000
square feet, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus the hotel and plus, plus.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With tha! is there a - first of all, Bob, as the representative, you're
requesting a continuance to March lst?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to move this to March lst.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion and seconded.
Discussion: I would like to make sure that at that date we wrap it up for both consent and the final
hearing so that the - this developer's not put offfrom his date with the Board of County Commissioners. So
I just wanted to add that, because that will be the intent. Unless something radically goes wrong, that's what
it will end up.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ordinarily consent as I have learned, is limited to examining the
proposed fixes to issues that have been raised.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that going to be the limit of the scope of two weeks from --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. What Im saying is that we don't add another meeting after that two
weeks later for consent. We'll wrap it all up at one meeting.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as long as everybody's in agreement, is there a motion subject to what
we just talked about?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This applies to all three?
CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
All those in favor, signi$ by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 (sic).
And, yes, Stan, it's for all three. We didn't vote on anything --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: 5-0.
Oh, that's right. Patrick left. 5-0. Thank you.
And that takes care ofthat. Thank you for your endurance today.
MR. MULHERE: No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business, no old business. There's -- anybody left in the
public to comment?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see none, hear none, and with that, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn.
Page 66 of 67
February 15,2018
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Made by Diane.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Seconded by Ned. All in favor, signifr by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: We're out of here. Thank you.
F****,F
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at2:22 p.m.
COLLIER COLINTY PLANN ING COMMIS SION
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board o, 3 - , f - t& , as presented / orascorrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page67 of67
EXHIBIT A
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
VISION,PURPOSE AND INTENT
The Mini Triangle MPUD is intended to be a catalyst project spurring further redevelopment in
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate a vibrant mixed use development and
viable market demand, as provided for and incentivized in the GTMUD-MXD Overlay for the
Mini-Triangle" area, the MPUD provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in Site
Design and Development Standards. For the purposes of this MPUD mixed use shall include, at
a minimum, residential multi-family development along with a mix of commercial uses,
including retail, restaurant and office uses, and may include other commercial uses such as a
hotel with ancillary commercial uses, "multiplex" movie theater, bowling center, physical fitness
facilities, personal services, and other commercial uses identified in this MPUD. The
development form shall be two or more multi-story structures with commercial uses generally
located on the ground floor (and subsequent floors for some commercial uses such as office,
restaurants or multiplex theater by way of example and not limitation), with floors of supporting
parking, residential, hotel, retail, office or other approved uses. The MPUD establishes
minimums and maximums for residential density and commercial intensity to ensure a viable
mixed use development.
LIST OF PERMITTED USES
TRACT MXU—MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
A. PERMITTED USES:
The PUD shall be developed with a mixture of residential and commercial uses. No building or
structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land used, in whole or in part,
within the Mini-Triangle MPUD, for other than the following:
I. Principal Uses
a. Residential Uses (see Table 3 for minimum number of required multi-family units):
1. 210 Multi-family residential dwelling units are permitted by right.
b. Commercial Uses (see Table 3 for minimum required square footage):
1. 152 hotel suites (or other "Transient Lodging" uses including but not limited to
interval ownership or vacation rental suites) are permitted by right (7011). The
term Transient Lodging includes hotels and interval ownership or vacation rental
suites. Any such transient lodging shall include the following operational
characteristics and/or limitations: lodging accommodations normally on a daily
or weekly rate to the general public or to interval owners and provisions for
Page 1 of 30 19 C
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docxq14,/ /
3// Iii
check in and housekeeping services as well as other amenities such as dining
facilities, meeting rooms, or recreational facilities.
2. 74,000 square feet of the following uses are permitted by right:
a. Retail (5311-5399; 5411- 5499; 5611-5699; 5712-5736; 5912; 5921,
excluding freestanding liquor stores but allowing a free standing retail wine
store; 5941- 5948; 5992—5999); and,
b. Restaurant, eating and drinking establishments (5812 and 5813, excluding
bottle clubs); and,
c. Movie Theatre (multiplex) (7832); and,
d. Personal and financial services (6111-6163; 6211-6289; 6311-6399; 6411,
7212, 7231, 7241); and,
e. Other (7933, 7991, 7999 limited to yoga instruction, and bicycle rental;
8412).
3.60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right
7311; 7371; 7373-7375; 8011- 8092, 8111; 8611-8699; 8711-8748).
c. The following uses are permitted through the utilization of the Land Use Conversion
Matrix set forth in Section B. of this MPUD.
1. Assisted Living Facility (ALF) (8082), limited to 150 units and a FAR of 0.45.
2. Indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage (4225), limited to
60,000 square feet. Access to the indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and/or
self storage must be internal to the site and storage not visible from an arterial or
collector road.
3. New car dealership, limited to an interior showroom/display, plus delivery and
warranty bays (5511), limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet. Access to the
warranty bays or repair bays associated with the car dealership must be internal to
the site and not visible from an arterial or collector road.
4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the
Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC.
II. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and
structures permitted by right in this MPUD, including, but not limited to:
a. Residential Uses:
1. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents of the PUD, such as
swimming pools, fitness centers, dining facilities, and recreation/amenity buildings.
2. Customary accessory uses and structures to residential units, including parking
structures, gazebos, fountains,trellises, signage, and similar structures.
Page 2 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
b. Commercial Uses:
1. Caretaker's residences one (1) per building, not to exceed three (3), subject to LDC
Section 5.03.05.
2. Temporary display of merchandise during business hours provided it does not
adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health or safety as
determined by the County. Merchandise storage and display is prohibited within
front yards adjacent to Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail (US 41), but allowed
within internal public areas and within side and rear yards.
3. Customary accessory uses and structures to commercial development, including
parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, and similar structures.
III. Interim Use:
The cell tower located within this MPUD at 2045 Davis Boulevard may remain in place and
in operation as a legal conforming uses until such time as the current lease expires or is
terminated early by agreement of the parties of the lease.
B. BY RIGHT DENSITY AND INTENSITY, LAND USE CONVERSION MATRIX,
AND DENSITY AND INTENSITY LIMITATIONS:
Table 1: By Right Density and Intensity per Section A.I
Multi-Family Hotel Permitted Medical/General Office
dwelling units) rooms) Commercial Uses square feet)
Section A.I.a.1. Section A.I.b.1. Section A.I.b.2. Section A.I.b.3.
210 152 74,000 60,000
Table 2: Land Use Conversion Table (1)
TO
FROM Multi-Family Hotel Retail
Medical/
Assisted Self- New Car
du) room) sf)
General
Living(
2)(
du) Storage(sf) Dealership (sf)
Office(sf)(3)
ITE LUC(4) 230 310 820 720 254 151 841
dulti-
Family N/A 0.875 79.130 170.851 2.382 — 2,015.390 200
Hotel (room)1.143 N/A 90.456 195.305 2.723 2,303.846 228.626
Retail(1,000sf) 12.637 11.055 N/A 2,159.113 30.100 25,469.231 2,527.481'
E
Medical
General Office
5.853 5.120 463.153 N/A 13.941 11,796.154 1,170.611
3)
1,000sf)
Table Note(s):
1) du =dwelling units;sf=square feet; N/A–not applicable.
2) ITE LUC 254 used for Assisted Living facility based on one bed per dwelling unit.
3) Medical/General Office Conversions are based on medical office use .
Page 3 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
4) ITE Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition, Land Use Code Numbers(LUC)are used for the trip generation
and conversion data(i.e. LUC 230 is Multi-Family aka Residential Condominium/Townhouse).
Table 3: Density and Intensity Limitations
Density and Intensity Limitations
Multi- Assisted New Car
Commercial Uses Med/Gen
Family Hotel
Listed Under PUD Office Living Self-Storage Dealership
dwelling (rooms) dwelling (square feet) (square
Section s A.Lb.2.
units) units) feet)
Minimum 105 N/A 37,000 combined 30,000 N/A N/A
N/A
Maximum 377 228 200 000 combined 90,000
150(FAR of
60 000 30,000
0.45)
The "by right" density and intensity identified in Section A.I. may be increased and the uses
identified in Section A.I. paragraph c. may be permitted through utilization of the Land Use
Conversion Matrix, subject to the following limitations:
i. Any increase in density and/or intensity for any approved use in the Conversion Table
will result in a decrease of density and/or intensity of the corresponding "converted
from"Use.
ii. In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation exceed 875 two-way PM peak
hour unadjusted trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates
in effect at the time of application for the SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.
iii. A minimum of 105 multi-family residential units shall be developed.
iv. A maximum of 377 multi-family residential units may be developed through utilization
of the Land Use Conversion Matrix for units above 210.
v. A maximum of 228 hotel units may be developed through utilization of the Land Use
Conversion Matrix for hotel units above 152.
vi. A minimum of any combination of 37,000 square feet of and a maximum of 111,000
square feet of allowable commercial uses listed under PUD Section s A.I.b.2. may be
developed through the utilization of the Land Use Conversion Matrix for square
footage above 74,000 square feet.
vii. A minimum of 30,000 square feet and a maximum of 90,000 square feet of medical and
general office uses may be developed through the utilization of the Land Use
Conversion Matrix for square footage above 60,000 square feet.
viii. The total square feet of all commercial uses, excluding hotel, shall not exceed 200,000
square feet.
ix. A request for reductions below the minimums stated above in paragraphs iv. and vii.
above, may be requested by the developer or subsequent owner, and maybe approved
by majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners.
x. A maximum of 150 ALF units may be developed if converted from "By Right"
density or square footage as set forth on Table 1, By Right Density and Intensity per
Section A.I.
xi. A maximum of 60,000 square feet of Indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and/or
self-storage (4225) may be developed if converted from "By Right" density or square
footage as set forth on Table 1, By Right Density and Intensity per Section A.I.
Page 4 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
xii. A maximum of 30,000 square feet of new car dealership (5511) may be developed if
converted from "By Right" density or square footage as set forth on Table 1, By Right
Density and Intensity per Section A.I.
xiii. No building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last undeveloped
MXU Tract (of the three MXU Tracts) depicted on Exhibit C, Master Plan, unless: (1)
construction has begun on a building or buildings that satisfy the minimum 105 multi-
family dwelling units, and the combined 67,000 square feet of retail, restaurant,
entertainment, personal services, and office (or any reduction in these minimum
amounts approved by the Board of County Commissioners); or (2) certificate(s) of
occupancy has been issued for these minimum required amounts; or (3) these
minimum required amounts will be accomplished by the construction of the building
described in the requested building permit.
xiv. No individual commercial use may be located in a building less than two stories.
C. TRACT GO: GREEN/OPEN SPACE
Green/Open Space areas are not fixed on the MPUD Master Plan. They will vary in location
throughout the site, and will be located at the time of SDP approval. A minimum of 15 percent of
the overall MPUD area shall be provided in usable Green/Open Space. Green/Open Space areas
may include: surface and rooftop landscaped and hardscape areas, all outdoor public spaces and
common areas, including pedestrian ways, sidewalks, greens, patios, terraces, and the like, and
pedestrian ways, sidewalks and landscape areas installed and maintained by the developer
whether within the adjacent public rights-of-way or within private easements. Structures
intended to facilitate public use and gathering are permitted within Green/Open Space areas.
Examples include, but are not limited to: gazebos, fountains, trellises, planters, benches,
landscape structures, outdoor art including statues, food-trucks, mobile kiosks, signage, and
outdoor dining facilities.
Page 5 of 30
H.\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
EXHIBIT B
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The table below sets forth the development standards for residential and commercial land uses
within Mini-Triangle MPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified
in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision
plat.
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MIN.LOT AREA 20,000 s.f.
MIN.LOT WIDTH 100 feet as measured by frontage on a public right-of-way or internal driveway.
MIN.FLOOR AREA 500 s.f.for commercial structures and 700 s.f.500 s.f for residential dwelling units,
except that up to 20%of residential dwelling units may be between 699 and 500 s.f.Hotel
suites/rooms and ALF units,are not subject to a minimum floor area requirement.
MINIMUM YARDS
ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC 20 feet
STREET
ALL OTHER MPUD 5 feet
PERIMETER YARDS
MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN 40 feet
STRUCTURES
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT 160 feet
NOT TO EXCEED(ZONED)
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT* 162.8 feet NAVD
NOT TO EXCEED(ACTUAL)
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC S.P.S.
STREET
ALL OTHER MPUD S.P.S
PERIMETER YARDS
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT S.P.S
NOT TO EXCEED(ZONED)
MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT S.P.S
NOT TO EXCEED(ACTUAL) _
S.P.S.=Same as Principal Structures
BH=Building Height
FAA Letters of No Hazard Limit building height to 168 feet above mean sea level(AMSL),which equals 170.67
NAVD(See Exhibit C Master Plan Sheet 4 of 4).The Maximum Zoned and Actual Heights are more restrictive than
the FAA Maximum Height.
B. Parking:
1. Off-Street: Parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.02.16 - Design
Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area,
Section F., Table 1 Parking Space Requirements in the BMUD and GTMUD. For uses
not specifically listed in Table 1, parking shall be provided as required in the LDC
except as otherwise provided for in Exhibit E.
2. Other: Within or along internal private driveways, parallel or angled parking may be
provided.
Page 6 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
A
z
F-
z
0
w
e
gill
Cio> - -
0
Z (,)
Oga
aU
az6w
O
Ow5 <
O
0
W
a5mLL
co
co
W
Op
0
W
Ww2o
Z
LL
LLO
O < <
I
UUo
WoQ.
IF'
o
O
00
0w
W
N
as
a
Uva
zwJ
ham-
H
W
W
0
I-
v
cnN
aw
om
wz
LLIJ
pU
0
oo
W
Z
0
aaA ,?
mxLg
m
g =
p
w
1=
F. `"
CI)
OOW
0-
aZOpQ
w
cl)
W
0U
I-
0-
c0
X
CtWr(
cW
C)
8
W
c)
p
y
ao ' (
nW
c/) (
0 \
1Z
Q
W =
W
04
P4
r4
p
x
a,
L.
L.
zz
N
co
v
a
w
Q
U
m
W
U)
UC7aZ0cci..>
vI0
cGI-
j
Q
WCr (
n
3AI2dO
Td10213
W
W
00
2
0
v
I
W
O
O
7'
7I-
m (
Ni
D
0
CZ
co °
U•
2
U
v1ZA
m
o
d
A =
U
A
6Z
00 ._
x
vg
Z
2
i_
W
1
z ---
Q
W
z
Lj
g,
e4
t
s
L
1 .
0
1....
Jz
NNCD
I-
0UXc.
i
zg°
H00
F -
pWo
aLL
W
W
LI.
U)
v
W
z -
z0
0..
W
U
UcC,
Oaz
Q
Z ,
o -
p
A
11;-:---_-_:::" "
i:
0 (
1)..,
N
J
Q
W
W'
a -
aw
W
Lill
I
ZLL
tx
LL
a
ctCOQ
co
r --
0
Z
W
w
J
C)
U
z
o
m
ogm
u_
Qamo
W
I
J
I
I
3
F- '
mu)
cnoO
mm
U)
wpzw ~
Q
2
QJ
I-
Q
it '
E4-
X
0
d
U
Aa
J.
U
Z >
WW
o
sat
v
E-,..!.. -
T
Q0H >
a.
I ,
J
z
G:
Q
U ,
n
to /
K
I
a
a
i
J
E-
i
1
11.
1
ry
U '<
N _
i24 ',('
a
I
y ,
r
A
L)
Z
I
W
d
i `
W (
i—,
Z
Uo
A
J
m
I
Q
o
f
0
Kit,
N
S
N
I
cc
i
N
v
a
a,
a
0o.
WO:
f
re
Il
iUUU
2
to
o_
7,-,
3,
4-'
I-
aL
aa¢
0
U
w
A ",
A
C7
o.,,
00..,,,
1 -
CD
D
W
Z (
Z
a
ai,
r;-
hi
2
yam
v
z0A ,'
2 .
i
II
u
3
cab
cava"CC
R
w
o
o•
o-
CA
W
1
Iv
CFee<<
K
NCS _
Q
c'
as
Q¢ ;<<
gg
a
a
CO.,
c..*
Z
z
ii ,
z
J\
O
A
S
0 " ¢
l
z
j
S.
0 /
L
5
ig - ;
5
o '
iiirpr
l
O
I-
1
s\
r
i
W .
7. ..
1
eF
F
i
t
r
1`
i
U
0
53
0
z
O
I<<
16
I
E ;
a
a
F
IFF
1111 !
Page
7
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
NtLL =
eI€
e
O ;
Rii +
N
en
I-
WCilLI
CD
C."
I
CII
U
W
Z
O
2 ,
taI-
EF,
C
7
W00w
aW '
n
XF
m
w
00•
W
oM
W
Q
O •
Q "
I
cn
rn
awo
VI
N
0_
fPE
ci
l
1'.'?
c.,
sa
iL---
1,
4 -
Q
O
Z
z
ill
elr --
b
41
c4
JL
g
I '
q
b
a
W
r-
1,
oi
N.
Al- G
W
oO
oN
W >
W
co
0
0
0.
A
iiii
Z
Ii
rn
p,
H-
Jrn
w ¢
r
OP
CO
cnQ
V
2
X
R
R
0
azp
U
fZ
QW
aW1n
C
5'
5'
5
1
W
4:
9',$‘
G
1‘
45.
2D
044
gWrJ^
iiV
J0
Z
Z
ii /,''
Q ..,
Q
D
i,
fr
II
CC
0-
7
Z
Z2 '
eh'
i
i,
8
e , ,
4,
i
iQE
E !411411t
Page
8
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
Cr
t-is
OJ
0
0
1L
gg
g^-.
Co
L
p _
c0
O ;
e
l'
RA
u
y
0
vi
0
C
0 "
O
C
0
co
7
0
u =
0
m
0
a, .
r
C
on =
f-
2 -
0 •
o
oT
0
0
CO
3
o
N
W
a
2
o .
ro
m
c
ai
v
0
m
W
o
v °
ocn
Y
c
0 `
0
3
m
o
2
v
v
0
Y
0
c
c
E
v, \
0
L
U .
U)
i
ro
0
y
no
N
0 '
NO
00
C .
L'
H
v
O
a
3
a+
Lo
L
y
N
LO
E .
N
O
c°
c
a
4-
4-
0
0
c
7,-;Z.,
Y
c
7
W
Z
o
E
H
0
0 -
p
76
moi.,
0
0
to
0
aJ >
7
E
Q
m
1 _. °
0
0
C
0.
c,
u
3
0
0 ;
0 '
X
U
J
O
0
3CO
O
4---
n.
c
E
c
L -
0
0 >
E
Ln
F
d
c >.
E
o
co
j `
C0 ,
3o0 =
Ec
0
JJ
UJ Ce
n
p
O
0
y
p
o
on
v
p
y '
H
as•
co
U
d
0
0-
Vf
rCa
m
ro
0 -
0
LL.
Y
C
m ^
Q
E -
0
N
0
1 ,-
v,
3
d
0 =
c
o
0 -
W
W
co '
c
U
c
a
Y
c
3 •
0
p •`'
E
y
co
n
7
c
0
0
3
a
c
0
d;;
U ,
E =
m
o
7
7
U
yr
0 `
n
0
i
d
CO
C
N
U
Op
0 ° (
4-
C
r
cc
O
0
00
ea
C
N
O
2
O
c0
CO
N
C
0
d
0
n.
N
0
yr
0-
0 '
F-
c
o '>
p
O0
0
1
E
pp
pp
v
o
c"
i
c'
F-
U
00z
0
0
0
7
0 °
0
to
U
U1•
11
s-
C
W
7
O
Z
2
i!
O
O.
r6
Q.
L
C
vi
0
N
7
N -
0
c
0. =
0 .
no
dtF- _
c
Z
o
c
U
7
7 -
0
y
4-'
a
Z $
y
OU
a_C
N - '
v1
ip
m
O.
r0
d
2
L
V°- '
E
0
0
ry
o
c
y
L
o '=
y
co
W
Z
8LLdo
0c
o
on
0 °
3
ra
0
p
y
L
0
0
2
3rvp
o
0
3
0
0
y
o
y
0
o
o
a "'
H
co §
z
o
6'
O
0
r0
O
ro
z
6-
e0
o
p
a1
COp
d
p
CO
L
T
to
F-
C
2
Z
LL
a
o
4-
sal
m
Io
I.
O
0 .
0
L
N "
O
0
Od
0 .--
I• -
C
CO
C
U
F-
ry
C0 ..'
aJ "
O
C
V
r'
00
0
O
d ° °
0
C
d
00
7
p
C
U
r
N
v+'
f
ro .
N
N
ZQ
Q
Qr
t
n
o `^
Eo0
3
o
PJ
v
0
0 =
0
3
0
a
O
V "
O >' `
II'
7
C
X
O
L
U
p
C
N
r0
d
p
u
Z
w21
V--
v
0
On >
d•
U
0
v
Lro
0
C
fli
nn
d
c
Ln
E
m
C
0
ca
don
P
cv
v
E
aY' ° - `
n
E
0oc
o
c
o
m
o
c
v
4-,
O
E
0
v
0 "
t
to
0.
0.
E
o
c
u
0
as
d '
W -
W
0
y
v
co
a
CO
d
k
R ;
a
0
C
Q
Q
a1
O
N
O
N °
0.
g
2
W
i
CO
7 .'
7
OD
v-
0
L
y
c
rn
N
aJ
0-
L
0
F-
V
V
Si
C
cv
0
s +
i
cv
ow
fl "
Cu
3
CO
o
own
ZF
wr"
1
N
C
O
a1
E
0
C
ro
Ga
O
L7
O
U ~ >'
a)
Y
d
O
k
k
ko$
s
W
y
X
7
@
a1 (
9
L
y.,
of
L
O
VI
0
U
O1
a1
tiW
o
VI °
n
E
a
d
d
Q ° °
L
aci
CU
p'
v
L..
E
o
a)
00 ,
0a
7
o
W
2
U —
CO
O
Lc
s?. .
0
u -
YOoc_n=
U2O -
0—
F-
0
x :
0
f0
C
c
L
rn
CO
0
t
0
0 °
12.)
0
C7
c ,
co
a
v
C
O
rxd
O
E
C
C
C
d
0 -
0
0
N
Y ..'
Z
e
0
o
1
S
a
o
r
o
L
v
0
0 . '
3
W
e
E
7
Y
7 -
0
0
0
0 '--
w4_ .-
vvr
0 .
0c
c
0
02
o
Ecr
0
Y
0
n °
3
0
ro
0 - •
0
0
W
H
r6
O
ra
a
v
v
C = "-
E
o
v
v `
0 >.
3
00
E
C
Ceti
00
0
CO -
0
Y
E
ro
0 '
3
0
o
7
0
a;
ay
0
a
0
co
0-
0
Qn
C
C •
n
d
v ° «
v, •
c
o %
0
2
U
o _ °
L
o°
L
o
CO
m
o =
o
on
C
v
Ll
2
It
6 '
y •
E
0
Q
3
Y
E
0
a
N
v
0
co
O
O
co
L
v .'
Q
w
0
o
y
ra
CO
0
a) .-'
p
E
r .....
U
vi
c
I- }
C ° -
0
L
m
E
0
PP
v
C
aJ .
f6.,
o
Y
y
E
E
E
F-
o.
0
s
Q
Q
O `-'
40
y
fp
V
c
o
m
N ,
E '^
a1
p
C
W °
o_
o
O
D
W
i
U
L
7 , `
d
d
to
7
3 .
Y
d,
a1 =
D
d
CL
W (
n
J
3
0
3
L
E
L
00
N
d `/ +-' ._
c
v
E
r0 >?
N
0
N
2
0
Z
Ur
3
one
o ° -
CL
f0
cY
0
ti
U
O
Z
E
CCIO
cCU
f°
vai :_
EL ` °
cs
o
4--
3
v
E
E .-
o -
c
1i
1-
QD
c
a._
0 ..
E
v
s —
do
o >
o
F `
c
U ¢
CC
O.
0 ._
@
N
N
0 +,
0
3
ca
C
rn
Q
0 +-' •- '
i
L
W >
F-
2
3 ° "
t
3
3
v
v
o `°
rsi
aci :.
o -
co
a
o
L
H.
a1
co
2
N
u)
0
Z_
m
7 '"
O .-
i
N
O
0-
n,
a
7
O
O .'
C -
0
0
M
01
N
c
L
O
N
CD
N
ro
N
ul
E
0 .
n
o
l0
O -
o
O
s-
L
y'
u
c
W
CC
L
co
CO
m
O
O
N
0
0
0
N
0
C °
O
O
C
t
C
an
O
00
LU2
VP
C
L
O
v
02
C
l0• _
ti)
C
N
C
C
U
4-
O^
00
OD
7
o0.'
0
H
a)
W
yr
I-
a1
r0
ra
O
C
p
C
c
C
U
0 -
c0
o
a
o
oL
0
a,
0
0 •
c
o
C
0
C
0
3
r`
o
c
W
O
rsi
rl
N
c ,
N
tD
0
ai •
7
7
y -
0 '.+=" ._
E
r`
c
L.- -
N
O
H
J
o
v
o
r0
o
rn
o >.
c
o
d.
0
c
Q
J
a
c
0
0
a)
4
U
r
CO
0
0 .
n
2
P@
a
4
ro
N
m
N
co
V `
N
r,
o
o
C
N
N
O
o
y =
E
O
a)
Z
Q
U
7
U
ro
U
aJ
U
y
U '-
U
0 °'
U
p
00
Y
U
U
aJ -
O '
D
0
co
U
n
0 - > -
v
o
m
o
E ' _
7
0
rn
3
o - -
o
a>)
0 =
E
rn
a
5 '
ra
E
Y
E '
E
u
E
E
E
m
EOL
5
o
C
E
m
p2 °
F-
E =
0
3
o •
o •
0
0
o -
o
y
U
o
0
0
v
o
J' .
0'
yon
o
f
C ',-
a,
w
E
w
O
w
L
m
w
ra
X
rn
r0
O_
C
0
fa '-
CP
0
4—
7
w
d
r0
w
ra
C
d
C ..'
C
CC
C
C >'
C `
C
E
U
0
0
C
E
in
m
C
d
C °0
7
0
0
0
O
0
3
0
0 °
0
1100
0 -
0-
2
0
7
C « '
C
0
C
ria
ro -
ra -
r0
o
ca
O
N •
r0
CO
0
CO
CO
7
vi
ra
c
p0+'
7
0
ra• °
r
p
p
a7+ '>
C >
0 > >
ro
N >
y >
0
d
CO 0 > <
a
0
U
5
0
00
d
0 ' =
5 °
s
U
0
0
0
0
aJ
C
as
0
aJ >
d
i
C
rn •''
0
o
0 -
0
0
To
0
0
0
ro
u
0 .+
000
co
rn
N
O ,•'
r"
o +'
0
O . %,
w
O
E
0 .-.
3$
g
i
rn
c
Y
N
H
C
L .-
i
C = .
0-..
a/
r0
U
0
0'
F
F
U
p
7
V
PJ
U
a,
c
N
ra
C
7
d -
0
U
0
00 '
LS
C
o
L
0
i!
k
M
Q .--
1
O
N
2riaa
Y
Jlrid
0.
lD
3
d
O1`
C42w
inoo .
0
2
dal
L
Ol
2
4142141
Page
9
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
1.O1RRTr
R
I—
dAVN .
L9'
OL
6 =
1SWV+.
89
6 =
IHOI3H
MAI
W3
w
0
a
Q
w
z
Z
Z
Q
L0
Q
o
o
a
0
cci
mW
W
co
u
z ' =
H
Ow
2
O
DW<
CC
tLIli
FF0
Q
cn
2
0
lL
Niii
J
O
W
Z
Q
w
J•
Q
w
CO
WJ
zQ
c
its
W
J
d
n
5>-
W
m~
aJ.
2Q
Z «
HHIz.0
7-
Z
Z
a
O
Q
o
e
6
ti >
R
R
Z
CL
a
J
II
Z
e
wM <
ao b
ZO
a
Z
o
o
a
4
co
QQ
in
t
i- `n
m
u
e
oc
i
Ia
w
Q50
a
w —
0
u
wz
W
Q
Z
U)
2
z
z0W
c7
o
w
mw
w
t= ¢
z
5
w =
m
0
w >
J
W
ce
J
LII
D
Z ~
W
Z
Q
w
Q
w
Z
D
j
Q
OQ
0d'
QCC
x
2a.
Q
Z
LL
Z
OQlOIT
Z
Z
Q
QW=
0
CK
2w
0
N441
0CL
TWO
I.—
a
aMmaaUwnJ
0I
Qz
IIwJW
Page
10
of
30
13:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUPPLEMENT
EXHIBIT C-1, SHEETS 1-9
Sheet 1: Conceptual Site Plan
Sheet 2: Typical Street Front Elevation
Sheet 3: Typical Street Front Plan View
Sheet 4: Optional Street Front Elevation
Sheet 5: Optional Street Front Plan View
Sheet 6: Typical Garage Elevation Street View
Sheets 7-9: Architectural Renderings
Page 11 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
E
p
g
r
4
Vy
Sm
At+`
H0_W0 =
a
Z
i
4,
5
V
Uit
x
V
Z
F
7
Q
i'
J1
B
114
a
e
lllfll\
i
0
a
is
0ti .`°
i
U)
w
r
is
0.
i
b
el
J
z
v
n ,
7
aria'
hM
El_
59-
Z—W
A
itt--# : -- -...
i.. * .
itLIDW
fp7
Page
12
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
ri
Y*" .<
O
l''
is
44 :'
1° '',,,:
i . *
1 _-
A ''"
I''"'''.
b
a _.
K '
til
i.,. -,
x
aa!
ra
VI
igi
N..
W
3
P
h
A,,,,,--.
4-.--:-.-..
i
ccLLWLU
1
U
4rr.;14',--„,',,
w
k
fd:/
4;
k140.;. - y
Z111 <
a
o
Page
13
of
30
H:
A2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
0
ill
1 _, .„:„., .
r
r
a
t, ,..,
ofic
0
z
r
P
4
t9
I`
t
i• .., }
Olim .
trot
wry,.•
fir'
irf
I—
LLI
8
i
1,
61;
1)
0
r •
I • ...,:
v!,,.
CZ
1413
0
i^
Ci.
y
J ,
J
w",
Q
Q
T
6
S.--)
y
a $
S. , $=
r.
i \'.
C
1
1i
s
L=, ,_
i.
r
U
oiii'ds'
No"
CO
jijri: a
t
J.',\
F
41.
v
r
r
i .
i .
Y'
F=
ems . ,,.
Q
fl
5-
4-
e--
J
z
1
N
0
i
E-
w
0
W
e1,41
411100
z
wZww
f
cG
Page
14
of
30
H:
A2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
1.,. ..,. ,„,. ,,,,,.....
i,
I.:
ri-
V
11
a
1
off#..
to.t...,:,...,
t....
i.
r,,,,
4„.
4,,,,,,,...,.,
1„,-
2:-:''
s
i '''''-'
i''''
MMM
4
t
41%.t
Tf
3
J7
xs
t
al
4 '
it
a
i
1, „
1 '
A .
ttn
Lam"
fla
4,
1LY
J
o
r
c71
if
LliZ
r......_ ,......
i._ ,.... .
p6
ii
7%
o
F=
7
piiih—,
c'-'
o
cto
e
401"
4-
o
0'''.
1
I.'
su
WC7
Page
15
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
IIII,!!
I!
sl'
1
I
IIIII
ro
sibs !! !! ? ,III
I
I
sibs !!!" !!
i
sai.
o-
II4 •
ve •*
1<
y
i !•,,. -
Com'•
r- _
i
at
l
WS0
m•••*; ;
04
s
i !
sibs! !
W
T
r
I
NI '.
a
w
412
v4i7!
w
7-0:
t:. !!
carraI!
I
I
VI
0
I!
4!!
Q
II/
lI!`
Ills®!®!®!
Ii
E
a
Z11
cop
z
w
sly
aZ
ate,
O
y!
r ,
Z
Pm.
rA
I•
IIIIIIIl0QF4
a-
ct
lll ".
sg
0
1!!!
z
o
I—
III
c
i',.:_____ -_,:--
1,
Afl'
k.!
I!!
sI! !`
N
I04 ` `
n
G.
isili• ®
Filo
Ns4lI!
lw
4'
t' ! !!! !!!!!
l'-
Ilth
I4
m
M
W
N
gy
Q
Z
fir ;'
i
t
4c.
iF
i '
V
Z
tri
ollI!!!!
slls"
r .,
n.
r!!
r !!
LiC
IMP
sir
Ni
iI!
a,
a°
r
il
Y
CD
w `7
f
Q
1
Page
16
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
7'
x„„
4
f.
ril1.
ate,
ci
E.
i
o
N
7e)
1,
0„.„-„
1„.4
1
el1'
a'- ;-..:--.'
42.
4.667:
P':
C
3
k4D .
b
W
ii
fY
Air
r =
i
A
0
Ikat
a
E
Z
o+
a
j
e• ' .
a-
2.. °' '°' '
0
LU
i
w
J
l-
f
4
l
w
0rg
lt.
p
i
i
r,
w
CL2
F
1.
111111.
11% >
I
w
I-
I-
I
7
w.
Z
i
ct
x£
1111111r
itg.
2QW
C
QC
E
ti
Page
17
of
30
H:
A2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
a
f:' -.
4,,„
7,
7:,..
72 .,,"
k,,
to
r
i ,
f '
1,
41
4.
tuf '..
itfr
E
A
ZZZ
t
4:,. .!•:°- , \-
1.'"
k° --_-: ..:',..:
1 ''',','-'''-''.:-.:.:
t-,-
i:‘.-".„,"
Al---;.'"
I\--
ilit'
ltr-Y,,,,____''''',' * - -'
I
s. , ,, ,,, :
LI :
Et----
v :
Z
r
1 .
4mi
Y°
l
x
it
c
t
E
d
Page
18
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
h.,.41 -.'„.`-', '
4,-
i' .;:
if -,,,,,.--
1,•,:- ,
141:. , -
1
4
1 ,,,-,
t-,,.-, •.
t.' *--,,.`
7f _ _ _.",..-
7,,,,„,:—
27,,
t ' ,:;_ -- •„-- ,..,
i, ,
t=
t
11:
1.
A:
A=..............
4„,
It
k
011mill•.=••=
1."
3....--_
1
4
i,
4.
i....-'==.........=,$ ,-...,-.
7
w,, '''
r..,
1 :—. ,
t
41.
1."---=•,---==.
4 :-
i , -
1t
e2
co
t,
1
7rlt.4..'..-
m
4 —
xuc=
v02l-i1
i
c.,
0
3 .
I ,
i, !'
P
1
r
r
C..,
A
OA
ii ' ' ...—:
hiI :
11
f-
t-.
27_,
la
7 ,..- $
6; ,
IgI, '
r-
1
it
A1-'
1 - ,-.• : ',
it !,
1,.• '
r
ilr.-.--.
0-” - -
r.
r . ,..,„
14.
2
1!
2,
2 . , •.,,_
01,
1 - •
r.P:.. '
1
iI1
I
f
I '''
1
A —
iris-
i—
Ntn
T .
u
F
i
ollr
si'
41
1
i
Ain
Page
19
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
id
A
1.____,—....
4.
4. . , ' _
itir,'
miLict, ,
I
t,-:,:
t;_,-:,--:-
f -
it. -
x,„;
1111'
I
Mir
co
i-
1‘
1`
4
oN -"p/
a,
9Z3
1
tt,`
p,a-
t '
1,
Y
71
W
v
id
a
1t-
M' ,
1
i
1
0
3
CII
N
Kt
E_
3
1'
Y
ri]
lI
b
f
1N
bt
S
i
lc
I
1
i
1/
i
I[
I
lc
1
if
ill
iii : -'
I
imiEs1
Iiri
f
I
ti
f
I
i
ori
Tg _:
4
s\
A\ '-''
qS '
4"
b
D -
s1
IM
4
if
a,
Page
20
of
30
H:\
2016\
2016052\
WP\
PUDZ\
Post
CCPC\
Mini-
Triangle
MPUD(
PUDZ-
PL20160003054)
2-
28-
2018
rev4.
docx
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1:
LOTS 5 THROUGH 11, INCLUSIVE, OF TRIANGLE LAKE, ACCORDING TO THE MAP
OR PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38, OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM
THAT PORTION THEREOF PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED TO THE STATE ROAD
DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BY DEED OF CONVEYANCE RECORDED
IN DEED BOOK 16, PAGES 163 AND 164, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
LESS AND EXCEPTING:
THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 5 AND 6, TRIANGLE LAKE, A SUBDIVISION IN SECTION
11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, AS PER PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG THE
WEST LINE AND SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID LOT 6, SOUTH 00 DEGREES
33'46" EAST 245.26 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
STATE ROAD 90 (US41) (PER SECTION 03010-2116) FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION AND WEST LINE NORTH 00
DEGREES 33'46" WEST 24.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,529.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 47'18.3",
AN ARC LENGTH OF 158.65 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS SOUTH 53
DEGREES 53'54" EAST TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 5 AND THE END OF SAID
CURVE; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND SOUTHERLY EXTENSION SOUTH 37
DEGREES 59'11" WEST 20.01 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,509.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
00 DEGREE 42'45.9", AN ARC LENGTH OF 143.17 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH
BEARS NORTH 53 DEGREE 51'48" WEST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2
A LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING NORTH OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL, OF SECTION
11 IN TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Page 21 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING
NORTH OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIXIE HIGHWAY), OF
SECTION 11 IN TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE SAID
TAMIAMI TRAIL RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR 396.58 FEET ALONG
SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, TO ESTABLISH THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING DEFLECT 90 DEGREES
FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE NORTHEASTERLY AND RUN 322.02 FEET;
THENCE DEFLECT 43 DEGREES 39 MINUTE 10 SECONDS, FROM THE
NORTHEASTERLY TO THE NORTHERLY AND RUN 57.48 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT 69
DEGREES 51 MINUTES 00 SECONDS FROM NORTHERLY TO NORTHWESTERLY AND
RUN 63.91 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT 66 DEGREES: 29 MINUTES 50 SECONDS FORM
NORTHWESTERLY TO SOUTHWESTERLY AND RUN 338.2 FEET TO THE SAID
NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL; THENCE IN A
SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION RUN 98.29 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE POINT BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPTING
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID TRIANGLE LAKE;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID LOT
6, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 33'46" EAST 307.41 FEET TO THE SURVEY BASE OF STATE
ROAD 90 (US 41) AND TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID SURVEY BASE LINE, THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,459.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 01 DEGREES 15'59.2", AN ARC LENGTH OF 253.29 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH
BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 24'08" EAST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE
NORTH 37 DEGREES 13'52"EAST, 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 90 (US 41) (PER SECTION 03010-2116) FOR A
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 37 DEGREES 59'11" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC
OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,529.16 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 29'17.3", AN ARC LENGTH OF 98.22 FEET, THE CHORD FOR
WHICH BEARS SOUTH 52 DEGREES 3125" EAST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE;
THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 59'11" WEST, 20.00 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
LINE, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,509.16
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREE 29'20.3", AN ARC LENGTH OF 98.22 FEET,
THE CORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 52 DEGREES 31'28" WEST TO THE END OF SAID
CURVE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 1,964 SQUARE FEET.
Page 22 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
PARCEL 3
A LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL, OF SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH OF RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING
NORTH OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIXIE HIGHWAY), OF
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL
RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR 298.29 FEET ALONG THE SAID
NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, TO ESTABLISH THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING DEFLECT 90 DEGREES FROM THE
SOUTHEASTERLY TO NORTHEASTERLY AND RUN 338.2 FEET, THENCE DEFLECT
113 DEGREES 30'10" FROM NORTHEASTERLY TO NORTHWESTERLY AND RUN
107.18 FEET THENCE DEFLECT 66 DEGREES 29'50" FROM NORTHWESTERLY TO
SOUTHWESTERLY AND RUN 295.46 FEET TO THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL, THENCE IN A SOUTHEASTERLY
DIRECTION RUN 98.29 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 4
LOT 4, TRIANGLE LAKE SUBDIVISION AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38.
PARCELS 3 AND 4 LESS AND EXCEPT:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 4, TRIANGLE LAKE, A SUBDIVISION, AS PER PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, ALL BEING IN
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. BEING DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID
TRIANGLE LAKE, THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY
EXTENSION OF SAID LOT 6, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 33'46" EAST, 307.41 FEET TO THE
SURVEY BASE LINE OF STATE ROAD 90 (US 41) AND TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID SURVEY BASE LINE,
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,459.16 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 31'43", AN ARC LENGTH OF 105.72 FEET, THE
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 46'16" EAST TO THE END OF SAID
CURVE, THENCE NORTH 36 DEGREES 29'35" EAST, 50.00 FEET TO THE
INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT
4 AND THE NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 90
US 41) (PER SECTION 03010-2116) FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION AND SAID WEST LINE NORTH 37 DEGREES 59'11"
EAST, 20.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
Page 23 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
11,529.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREE 44'11.6", AN ARC LENGTH OF
148.21 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 08'09" EAST TO
THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 59'11" WEST, 20 FEET TO
SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 11,509.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 44'16.2", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 148.21 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS NORTH 53 DEGREES
08'16" WEST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 5:
LOTS 12, 13, 14, AND 15, TRIANGLE LAKE SUBDIVISION, AS PLATTED AND
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
OVERALL ACREAGE = 233,058.41 SQUARE FEET OR 5.35 ACRES, AS
MEASURED/CALCULATED.
Page 24 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
EXHIBIT E
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
LIST OF DEVIATIONS FROM LDC
This 5.35 acre MPUD is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and
specifically within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. Given the desire for this area to be a catalyst
for further redevelopment within the broader Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area, and
given the urban characteristics of this area, in addition to the specific deviations listed below,
additional deviations may be requested from any applicable dimensional or design standards
set forth in the LDC, excluding building height, utilizing the process and procedures set forth
in LDC Section 10.02.03.F,Site plan with deviations for redevelopment projects.
Deviations are as follows:
Architectural Standards:
1.Deviation from LDC 4.02.16.C.8.d.,which requires that residential uses be constructed
concurrent with, or prior to, the construction of commercial uses, to allow for
construction of residential uses without restriction as to timing of construction of
commercial uses.
2.Deviation from LDC 4.02.16.D.3.b., Frontage, which requires that the primary entrance
for any building be oriented to the street, to allow all primary project entrances to be
internal to the project via and internal courtyard, although additional primary and
secondary entrances may be located along US 41 or Davis Boulevard.
3.Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16 D.7.i.i., (Materials) which requires that mixed-use
building exteriors consist of wood clapboard, stucco finish, cement fiber board products,
brick, or stone, to include glass as an allowable external material.
4.Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16 D.7.i.ii., which requires pitched roofs to be metal
seam (5v Crimp, standing seam or similar design), slate, copper, or wood shingles, to
include tile as an allowable material.
Landscape Standards:
5.Deviation from LDC 4.06.05.D.2.a., which limits the use of palm trees in a Type D
buffer to a maximum of 30% to allow for up to 70% of the required canopy trees to be
Royal Palm trees. Royal Palm trees shall be 25 feet in height, on average, at the time of
planting.
Parking
6.Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04., Parking Space Requirements, which requires, for
cinema parking, 1 space for each 3 seats or 1 space per 40 square feet of seating areas,
whichever is greater plus 1 for each employee/non-spectator who will be present during
Page 25 of 30
H.\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
performances excluding those arriving by buses, to instead require 1 space for each 3
seats,plus 1 space for each employee of the largest shift,regardless of the floor or seating
area.
Open Space
7. Deviation from Section 4.07.02 G. 2., which requires at least 30 percent of the gross area
to be devoted to usable open space within PUD districts containing commercial,
industrial, and mixed use including residential, to allow for a minimum of 15 percent of
the gross area to be devoted to usable open space. Structures and/or improvements
intended to facilitate public use and gathering, including but not limited to gazebos,
fountains, trellises, planters, benches, landscape structures, outdoor art including statues,
and signage, food-trucks, mobile kiosks, and outdoor dining facilities are permitted
within Green/Open Space areas.
Signs
8.Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04 F.3, which permits multiple-occupancy parcels or
multiple parcels developed under a unified development plan, with a minimum of 8
independent units, and containing 20,000 square feet or more of leasable floor area, 1
directory sign at one entrance on each public street, to allow shared Directory signs
between the Mini-Triangle MPUD development and the development immediately
adjacent to the west and/or the east on US 41. The shared Directory sign(s) will be
located west and/or east of the projects potential shared entrance(s) on Tamiami Trail
East (US 41). A shared sign may be located such that it is entirely on either parcel or
partially on both parcels, to the west and/or east as the ultimate condition for shared
entries may be. The sign(s) will meet all other applicable development standards set forth
in Section 5.06.04.F.3. In the event a shared Directory sign is permitted between the Mini
Triangle project and a project adjacent to the east and/or the west along Tamiami Trail
East (US 41), no other individual Directory sign shall be permitted along Tamiami Trail
East (US 41) for the projects sharing the Directory sign.
9.Deviation from Section 5.06.04.F.9., which establishes development standards for on-
premise directional signs and limits the number of such signs to a maximum of 4, to
allow for up to 6 on-premise directional signs within this MPUD, in accordance with all
other requirements set forth in Section 5.06.04. F.9.
Page 26 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
EXHIBIT F
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1.PUD MONITORING
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for MPUD monitoring
until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all
MPUD commitments until close-out of the MPUD. At the time of this MPUD approval,
the Managing Entity is Real Estate Partners International, LLC. Should the Managing
Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it
must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency
by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its
obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity
shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer convey tracts, the
Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes an
acknowledgement of the commitments required by the MPUD by the new owner and the
new tract-owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing
Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this
Section. When the MPUD is closed out, then the Managing Entity is no longer
responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of MPUD commitments.
2.TRANSPORTATION
a. Maximum Total Daily Trip Generation
In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation exceed 875 two-way PM
peak hour unadjusted trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip
generation rates in effect at the time of application for the SDP/SDPA or subdivision
plat approval.
b. Transit Stops/Shelter
The Owner shall provide easements to Collier County in a form acceptable to Collier
County to accommodate 2 transit stops, one on the project's frontage on US 41 and
one on the project's frontage on Davis Boulevard. As part of the site improvements
authorized by the initial Site Development Plan, the Developer/Owner shall, at its
sole expense, install a shelter and related site improvements for the transit stop
located on the project's US 41 frontage, utilizing a design consistent with established
CAT architectural standards or consistent with project architectural standards (i.e.
similar to recently constructed Naples Airport Authority CAT stops developed in
theme with NAA architectural standards). Additionally, the Owner shall convey to
the County an easement to relocate the existing undeveloped transit stop on Davis
Boulevard from in front of the Trio site to this MPUD site. The easement will be
similar in size to the US 41 transit stop easement. The easement will be conveyed free
Page 27 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
and clear of all liens and encumbrances and at no cost to the County. If Collier
County decides to improve the Davis Boulevard transit stop (with shelter and related
site improvements), it will be done in an architectural theme consistent with the US
41 stop location. Any part of the required landscape buffer vegetation displaced by
the CAT stop improvements shall be disbursed elsewhere within the PUD. The exact
location and conveyance of such easements and the specifications for the shelter shall
be finalized prior to the initial Site Development Plan approval. At the
Developer's/Owner's option, a unique design consistent with the project architecture
may be utilized.
3. UTILITIES
a. At the time of approval of this MPUD, Collier County Utilities Department has
verified that there is adequate sewer capacity to serve this project, however, at the
time of initial subdivision plat and/or Site Development Plan (SDP), as the case may
be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission
system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow.
Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such
improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined during the subdivision plat and or
SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be
permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the
development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades.
b. The Mini Triangle MPUD is located within the City of Naples potable water services
area. The City of Naples Utilities Department has verified that there is adequate
potable water capacity to serve this project. Prior to approval of a subdivision plat or
SDP, the Developer shall provide written documentation that the development plans
for the plat or SDP, as the case may be, have been reviewed and approved by the
City of Naples Utility Department with respect to the provision of potable water
service to the project.
4. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
The developer shall provide the Emergency Management Division with a 45kw towable
diesel, quiet running, multi-phase, multi-voltage generator to be used at other hurricane
evacuation shelter sites as a one-time hurricane mitigation effort. Emergency
Management will provide approved specifications to the developer who will deliver the
generator to Emergency Management, with all necessary warranty and manuals, new and
tested for immediate operation as well as a certificate of origin for over the road towing,
tags, registration, etc. The one-time generator contribution will be provided at the time of
the first residential certificate of occupancy.
5. ALF/RETIREMENT COMMUNITY COMMITMENTS
a.The Facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
Page 28 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
b.There shall be on-site dining for residents.
c.Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for purposes of
grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be
provided for the residents' individual needs including but not limited to medical
office visits.
d.There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with
their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall be responsible for
coordinating trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies,
music, and other forms of educational and entertainment activities for the
residents.
e.A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs
shall be provided for the residents.
f.Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency services providers in the event of
a medical or other emergency.
g.Each unit shall be designed so that a resident can age in place. For example,
kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheel chair
bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars.
6. SITE DEVELOPMENT OR PLAT APPROVAL—MASTER LIST
At the time of each development order application subsequent to rezone approval, the
developer or its successors and assigns shall submit a list of previously approved land
uses (approved via site development plan or plat) and the trips, commercial square
footage and residential units consumed to date. Developer shall also provide to County a
copy of its master list of land uses and converted uses for this PUD with each SDP or plat
application in the form attached as Exhibit G.
Page 29 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
EXHIBIT G
MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD
MASTER USE AND CONVERSION LIST
BY RIGHT DENSITY AND INTENSITY
Use
Units/Square Trip
feet Generation
Previously Approved Residential Units:
Residential Units Included in this SDP, SDPA,or Plat:
TOTAL:
Previously Approved Commercial Square Footage:
Commercial Square Footage Included in this SDP or SDPA:
TOTAL:
Land Use Conversions Tracking Chart
From To Converted
TripUnits/Square
Use/Amount Use
Conversion Feet
Generation'
Ratio/Factor
TOTAL:
Total Density and Intensity and Trip Generation to Date Chart:
Totals From Both Charts Above Total DUs/S.F./Rooms Trip Generation'
Residential
Commercial
TOTAL
This is the PM Peak Hour Unadjusted Trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in
effect at the time of application for the specific land use conversion.
DU: dwelling unit S.F.: square feet
Example" Land Use Conversion/Trip Generation Tracking Chart:
From To Converted Trip
Units/Square
Generation'
USE/AMOUNT USE
CONVERSION Feet (rounded)
2-way
RATIO/FACTOR PM Pk Hour
Multi-family/80 DU's Hotel 0.875 Hotel Rooms per 70 hotel rooms 42 vph
each multi-family DU
Med/Gen Office/40,000 S.F.Retail 463.153 S.F. Office per 18,526 S.F.retail 121 vph
1000 S.F.Retail
TOTAL: 163 vph
Unadjusted Trip Generation Data calculated from Land Use Conversion Table 3A of Study Dated 2-27-2018, or
Latest ITE Trip Generation Calculations,as applicable.
Page 30 of 30
H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Mini-Triangle MPUD(PUDZ-PL20160003054)2-28-2018 rev4.docx
0 S CD I)CD
CD 0_C
a 2
if-
i-
m0
1)
C7
CD_
ft)D
C:
3—
0
r)
rD
CD
001
7
r-
t.
S
13.)
ii-,T
a)
3
NEN'
t
rD
0)
o
HQ)is,-
1
rD
im<
0.)
CT
in ,
i-
a)
NJ=
V)
Cfcl
1
el
i,,,
o (
D
1-
4
3
4-.
4
1-.
00
rD
41:
i.',..
rl: -
i/ ..:
Ni '-' ,,,
li,
n
A
J.„
I-ii .
D
rt.
fr,-...- *** .
m
3
2---ry...',..:::„,
CD
s'.
01-- (---,i''
17
CL
n
N (
D
r+CD
N
O
r+
r)
3
O
O
Q
O
11 3
I.
CD 3
a)N 0 D CD
1
a)
hh A
co
o
a
a
ro
a)
o_
Q
0
o
m
C
rt
m
r9
cu
O
o
C
s
fp
p
o D
011
3
W
fD
00
0
0
it
a
3
C fDN
fD
o
p fD
o
vi
n
N
N
O
Q
O OO 0
O
i*
3
F:',
to
K
or*
11111
a (
i)
A ryl (
D
W
A
In
r+
I)
oo
V
oo
N
0
0 .
p .
oo
W
N
0
N
3cl)
C
0
M
CD fD
47
CD
O
DO O
D
0
m
uNi
a°
w
Lr'
fD -
0
S
lD
s
4:)-
4.
s
a
OQ
O
N
m
K
M
O
1
m
0_
0
r*
r-
r
O
D
Q
O =
rn '-,
v _
0000
x
o
fD
w
A
rr
c
Q
C
u
l
o
DJ
v
D
v
fD
C0)
W0
0
I-
I
O
D
r-
hr-
h
co .
V
V
ID
O.
0
0
C
3 CD 3
m
M.
Q
N
w
A
3
l0
In
O .
i.
0.
N
I-
CD 0-
E
r-
t•
m
0
cn
N
03
rn
c
II
n
CO al In
01
N
V
i^-+
CO
C
U1
0
01
i-
1
V
r
p
G
A
W
W
N
v+
ai
r
y
Z 0 e+CD
O
N
V
t.. -*
o.
W -' ~'
O
W-8
O
co! IIfl
rA1UD
DJ
IIU
v
UUHIU
DJ,
Q.
N
an
c
O
Ln
a
e`
t
o
T
O
in
C
s
C
w
11
A
3
41
D
Cu
o <
fa
71
h
a
m
M
h
73
Iv
a)
CDD
S
I-+
CDD
r
C
N
m
O)
m
d
00
N
N "•!
4
CO
W
NJ
0_ "
0
CU
Q =
v
O = .
P (
JI
U,
NJ
1-+
N
1-+
W
C
O•
m
3
3
I--'
I-,
A
O
O
O
O
O „,
3 -
o
C
m
s
cu
II
O
0
m
tD
O
0-
n,
C !
z
a '+
M
co
O
00)
t2D (
D
DJ
N
n
C `
1
NC
O
A
O
I
N
n
3
la
v+
1--
l•-•‘
1,
N
N
0
o
m
o ^
CI-
o
0
0
0
0
F
C
a
o
n
c
o
0
0
0
0
F,
C)
In •
3 `^
O
cn
N
1-
4
N
N
V.)
CD .:
C
D
N
D) \
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 -
0
70
N -,
V
n
C
C
W
C
C
C
O
3
1-+
O
O
A
O !
v
v
fD
Iy
0) -'
O
3
H
VIV -,
0
Q
CD
CCD
CD
N
CDD
73
co
II
p
CD (
D
CD
CD
CD
r7
7CU
N
N
3
r-
r
e0+
CD-
el.
ems-.
r}
o
a ,
N
CD
O•
o
D
II O
O
IMMO
NNO N
ig
oa
1,„
m
3
rD
7,
N
O
O
W
N
rn
coO
C
et.
m
O
O
O
V
D
O
N
01
NJ
01
W
NJ
l0
N , _
W
NJ '
0
A '
0 •
1'
17
n)
CO-
I
01
V1
A
W
N
F+
0
9
Q
m ~'
33 *
rh
ACo
tv
tD
T
N '<
0
s
e
Q -o3
41
O
I-C
In'
n ~t+
II
U,I-
s
X
MX
11)
fD flu
3r+a
N
rs
ID = (
D
N -
1
N
O
p
o
1-
0
3
O
rD
at/
C1QO
n
o
O
n
O
n
O
v
z
fp "
w - =
0
0
0
k- -
r
c
m -
E
3
3
co
m
Q
r
11
CD
I=.
n
U1
0
v
O
O
c
ro
0
rD
a
C
N
cm
CD
C
a,
a
3
o - -
n
N
Q
n
0
U
I
N
N
d
CM
C
n•
tgII
VI
W
A
rD
N
n
A)
v (
A)
A
3
m
c
N
CD (
D _
r (
p
In
G -
w
0 _
rt
tD
0
r
su
C
o7
i
v
Z
Ui
F-+
0
3
o
a)
M1
N
O
Z
bo
r+
0
D
NCrl
T
viO
U >
U'
0..
n
a)
fD03o
D
3
C
C
a
3
c.
v
N
v
rNw
rt
N
m
o
01
w
o
v
n
O
3
a
C
r
a
m
m
N
Z
A
I-,
0
t/
Y
0 fD
O
w
D (
Jr
o
C
N'
to '
O
0
00
m
r.`"
I
N
G7
1
0
C
ul 1.
0
VI ••••
J
v
v
o
cu
3
Z
F-)
W
Ls)00
V
LJ
J
A
W
o
N
CD
0fD
D
CD
p
00
O
c
W
O
N
N ` ((
D
r+
Z
Q
0
N
O
W
N
O CO
Cl7
F,
N
U)
V
O
N (
xi
N
N
0
N
CU !
D
11
S
up
al(OO
0w
0
CD
T'
W
N)
i-
a
N)
bo
W
U1
U1
A)
0
O
O
t.
p
O 3
N F-,
F
N
o
Z
WsuiDJ
11)
1-
N.)
N
I
I
1
NN .,
O
V
00
n
O
0l .
01
N ?
1
cD
O
00
rnOn0
V
N
Cfl Ln 01 Jr C LU CD
C
23
XrrZmm z --
Ii -
i
DO
y;
0z -
n
Ili
cQT._n
off:a V.
IS
n
a°
D
8
IQ
m
V
o
N
o
Q,
o
Cr
a
o CT
o
13-
r-
r
0
2
O
g
A -
0xiO
0
Mz -0cni
1rnn
co
c =
per
oW
z
ZTD
i cu
n
co
T
O
a,
n
oV
C 011N V
101 '
0-&- /
7 -
8.
ii—
m m 2
Q2,..,:
ii
mW1
N
64
1
y ,
y
i
err
I
c
rlit
T
3
y
d
i
I1
2
4`
F
i7y
i3
I
I
1
R
0
r
U
1
1 .
7
1
n
D
4''/,
l
L
I\\\\
V,
1
f)
4
a,__
1
d
I
t
n
F
m
10
i
L `rAmpr
a
Q
I..
I `
11
n
11
N
II
j
n
chi)
1
N.
1
i
N
TR
i/ ,,,,
4 ,
z. ---,
i -,.
1,
j & /
ii
i
Z
v
O
r
4444/#
Q
I.••
I
z
I
m
I,
i
1....,.
k
ic0"---
1
w=ri°
ri.
iC)nl< °
XliTi
r-I ': \
11'
I
J
c
c
m
U5
o
d ..
0
C
m
x
Z
I
1
z,
r" ..-
tr,... .
p... ....-
4t.
N.
rti
4
n
e4
2
TI,
po, ,
v,
k,„*,-..
e.,
00CN ' '
4e;
ZO
c.
T .. -' -,,,,,- . .,,,.,,
e1- , -,-
1',-
4
j'-' .,,
g,:•
t
s°"
1-- - '
4'--,-.
41:
44C: *
i
44
I
Ng.
4,,..,", —
I
r--
7,;
04,-, ''' * '
4§ .,„„_,....''' "'' '
4- --
41.
4.
4'.
4, „
A'?,
rsil', ' '-'
1
1' - -
N,
4''',;
4.;.-,-,,-
f
Y..
141+ ,---:. -:*-., '-,.'"''.,,
7,-
to,
11 .
u,
citteomiik,
k7-",:-
4, *,› ---
444
Aligi.
405AV"*"
4.-..--","
er-
wi,:„..-
x*,-.-•:-:::,-:.;:,.,,,,:- -...,,,--:., ,-- -,,,,,
0
4;
z,.
teagt;:::::;',::::.',
y-
c7,
4.
q.,,
e4;,,,
kk,:;-:,
L1-
41'.,,,:-!:'.
4..
11111///
44t4.
4,
Ft--,,,;:,:,
7t.
z.,:,_:;
til: ,.
1
I
L.,......-...,.:—' --
1-,
w-- — ,
zi-
og.,..
kov,
p3.,,..
i.:-,-,,„-....,
v,
r•
A''
t -'
4-
t-''
77:'.
77- '-, ....- -... -:-. . ---:--::..-.--.
4itPti..
i.,
4...
t:
r"
4.,
i
ily
i
4-
7,..,
1
1
2
1,..
E 2._
I=
f:y.:._LJ‘
n '
4
0
p
I
x
z
4
0 II
0
5.
Z Z -•I-r—^,
a_.— —•,
e----,...----
jp•—
H
H
eL,•
H
C:Z —Z
COMMERCIAL
DRIVE
r:
I
m
n
ti
X wL
m
T
7--
Z
hn
O
Z -
r_
r
T"
f
1!;
I.
Z
J
7 -
x
f
I
70
f
XZ
b
1/ ,
l
h
l
T
m
x _
Z D
C
L
N
C
Y
I
J
itrl
ITI
z-
t
G
m
7.
0
D
tn-
Z
C _
o
rn
r
n
x
v)
x.-
i,
O
N
I
r
0
xti Z
c CD
M _-
1
T
1 -
j
to
f
11
i
u'W'
iGni
V!
c
z
L_
v,
z
Y
e,
zZ
i
i
I
1
k
COMMERCIAL
DRIVE
z
y ,,.
d
1
41.:.,..--.-- ''
41' •• ''' • , - ,
9_,„-::
C
0C,1:
1.<1-
1:4.,
O
D
t4. ,
4,4kt,`
t*
1 !'\
fit
s
po.
r
L ;
i
M4miEiitil ,,
1'
4-`
4
m
ik
1
kliii-
C
G
f19sw '•
rr-;
Iise4t
i
z
m
1! ;' ,-
i
m1
cm
tm.•**
r
m
n
X'- ,
A•
butt
s >
a
raar•
Uq,
1..
m
r-
R
x
St --',',
1411-
l
k
akri.
t # `
7.,:, +
AilA - ,:•*;,.._.
f
u
o
y
DXI
71
flim;`
i,^
Cncn
1
D
o
Dr
pt-
t
Nt 1
r
m,,rn
akes
Dc _,,, ',,,••,
L.
1....-
2
4;
i.•
S'
5'
r---'-....,'-- '',', : !' '. '- ••• ,;.'
il4,.-•,-
r.. .
n
t9tS
i
Y
t;
AM{
i
A
L
a
te.
4-
m
r.
m
OW
Q`
rn X m
Pio) ,
n
i
O
i,
4
0
Z
00 cc eT m a Cn
94
m
zcoz
o .
c
cm ,'
0
C
0Dk
Z
W <,
i
N
A
ms
iy
e
0
N
ri
N
5wn
y '
1
i
m.'
m
mCiorW
D
ad
411_
a
C
Dtn
n
X00
0)
C PTI
O0)
7p
3171
r
m
m
v
n
m
Q
i
r-
5m
z
1'
O
5.
9
Z
iia z
x
t£,
1''
V
u
w
r
Q
r+ .
i
0_
0
r+ =
CD
O
DI
n --
I
r)
n
n
O
O
O
a)
r+ ,' = <-
s
c
O=
Obi
cu
r
r•
r =
rDD
rD
O -
o
3 - =
0)
n
fD
cu •
rD +
a)
r+
O-
rD =
N
Lip
E
n
CD -
5 "
r+
vi —
D „ (
D
v
o
e-+
p +
D
r-
r
v)
rpt
c7
n
ro
r,
D
r+
tea)
0
O
C
Z
D
fD
r+
3
a)
rD
to
O (
T)
c
N
O
3
rD
c'
CO
o
i
CD
cu
n
QD •
rD
vO -
rD
a)
0
x
C
cn
Q
O
v
Q.
N
v
3 _.
v
rD
r+
a)'
r-
r
5.
1.3 (
n
a)
N
7i
Obi
r)
CU
CD
O
r)
c
O_, • -
a_
3
0
v)
I-,
C'_
s. -
O
p
a)
n• O
rte+
5'
N
rDD
0O <
n
n
cn r
Q-
1-
p
0 -
r+
O
m (
J1
00
r(
1) <
S
z
r(
1)
a<
0
0-
a
0
0
N•
e-+
f7
C
rCD
Z -'
O_
r
nO
Q.
t
NJ
N
o.
D
cn'
D""
C
CD
p
O
N
a)
rD
I
eL
rD
3
r0i•
D
z
O
r-+
3
CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH•NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104-3568
ADMINISTRATION(239) 643-0733/FAX 643-4084
V OPERATIONS 643-0404/FAX 643-1791,E-MAIL administration@flynaples.com
February 28, 2018
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
Re: Collier County Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2018, Item 9.C. —LDCA-
PL20160003642, companion to PL20160003084/CPSS2016-3 and PL20160003054
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
The Naples Airport Authority (NAA) is an interested party in the above petition and Land
Development Code (LDC) Amendment proposal. I am writing as the Executive Director of the
NAA on behalf of the NM Board of Commissioners. NM requests that this letter be presented
to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) before the CCPC begins the hearing on this
matter set for March 1, 2018.
NAA had previously set out certain conditions under which it would not object to the development
proposed as the Mini-Triangle MPUD (MPUD). Those conditions were set out in a letter dated
September 26, 2016 to Mr. Jerry Starkey, Chief Executive Officer of Real Estate Partners
International, LLC. For purposes of this letter, the term Developer refers to the applicant, Real
Estate Partners International, LLC or its heirs, successors or assigns. A copy of that letter was
also transmitted to Mr. Nick Casalinguida, Deputy County Manager. The NM and its counsel
have reviewed the MPUD application and LDC Amendment as presented to the CCPC. That
review has resulted in the NM now having concerns about the MPUD Ordinance and proposed
LDC Amendment. Those concerns are set out in this letter.
The amendment as proposed exempts the land contained within the MPUD from all provisions of
LDC Section 4.02.06. It is NAA's understanding that the Developer requires relief only from certain
portions of LDC Section 4.02.06 governing the height of buildings within the Airport Zone, which
is limited to LDC Sections 4.02.06(E), (F) and (G). The proposed exemption is far too broad and
all other portions of LDC Section 4.02.06 should still apply.
NM requests that this request be denied as proposed, but could support the Developer
requesting a deviation from the height limitations of LDC Section 4.02.06(E), (F) and (G) for a
maximum height as set out in this letter. The Developer has requested deviations from other
sections of the LDC such as architectural standards, landscape standards, parking, open space
and signs. Therefore, a deviation from the height limitations of LDC Section 4.02.06(E), (F) and
G) would be consistent with the balance of the MPUD petition.
NAA cannot support the underlying MPUD rezoning petitions as currently presented, but would
support the MPUD under certain conditions as set out below. It is the understanding of NM that
the conditions below have been agreed to by the Developer, pursuant to the September 26, 2016
letter.
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
i G
APrinted
on Recycled Paper Po\0
Me Besi Airport 617426.1 2/28!2618
QAC6
31/ lie
Collier County Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 2
NAA's position is that the agreed upon conditions should be included in the MPUD Ordinance as
Developer Commitments.There is no mention of these conditions in the MPUD application or any
other documents related to the MPUD. The Developer Commitments that the NAA requests be
included in the MPUD Ordinance are as follows:
1. The maximum height of any building or other structure(including all rooftop appurtenances
such as communication towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors, recreational
facilities and equipment) shall not exceed 160 feet above the established elevation of the
Naples Municipal Airport (NMA);
2. Developer shall grant the NAA a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or
covenants in a form acceptable to the NAA; provided, however, if REPI agrees to reduce
the maximum height for any building or other structure(including all rooftop appurtenances
such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment)
to 150 feet, or less, above the established elevation of the NMA, then the NAA shall waive
its requirement for a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants;
3. The avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants shall be recorded
immediately after the deed conveying title to the Developer(and prior to any mortgage or
other encumbrance);
4. Developer shall provide in the declaration of condominium a disclosure approved by the
NAA notifying all prospective purchasers of the proximity of the NMA and the common
noises and disturbances incident thereto;
5. Developer shall construct all buildings and other structures in the Gateway Triangle
Development using noise attenuation techniques and materials;
6. The existing communications tower shall be relocated in a manner that does not adversely
impact the safe and efficient use of NMA;
7. The Developer shall comply with all stipulations of each FAA Determination of no Hazard
to Air Navigation related to this project issued on or about January 20, 2017; and
8. Any crane used for construction shall first receive a FAA determination of no hazard. The
applicant shall adhere to all conditions of any temporary crane stipulated by the FAA and
coordinate with the NAA throughout construction.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I plan to attend the hearing tomorrow to address any
questions.
Sincerely,
1)-% 9NNN
Christopher A. Rozansky
Executive Director
Enclosures
cc: Nick Casalinguida, Deputy County Manager
Jerry Starkey, Real Estate Partners International, LLC
Bill Owens, Bond Schoeneck& King, PLLC, NAA Counsel
NM Board of Commissioners
617426.1 2/28/2018
4/:#7 CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
nreia160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH•NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104-3568
ADMINISTRATION(239) 643-0733(FAX 643-4084
OPERATIONS 643-0404/FAX 643-1791.E-MAIL administration@flynaples.com
September 26,2016
Mr. Jerry Starkey
Chief Executive Officer
Real Estate Partners International,LLC
1415 Panther lane
Naples,FL 34109
RE: Proposed Gateway Triangle Development
Dear Mr. Starkey:
Please accept this correspondence as the City of Naples Airport Authority's (NAA)
modified position on the Real Estate Partners International,LLC(REPI)proposed Gateway
Triangle Development. The NAA's Board met on September 15, 2016 and discussed the
issue in a public setting, considered staff and public comments, and by unanimous vote
adopted the following revised policy regarding the proposed Gateway Triangle
Development:
The NAA will not object to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the
established elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport(NMA)for any building or other
structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers,
antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment)contemplated in the Gateway
Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions:
REPI shall grant the NAA a recorded avigation easement,height restriction and/or
covenants in a foam acceptable to the NAA; provided,however, if REPI agrees to
reduce the maximum height for any building or other structure (including all
rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts,
access doors and equipment)to 150 feet,or less, above the established elevation of
the NMA, then the NAA shall waive its requirement for a recorded avigation
easement,height restriction and/or covenants.
REPI shall provide in the declaration of condominium a disclosure approved by the
NAA notifying all prospective purchasers of the proximity of the NMA and the
common noises and disturbances incident thereto.
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT v.
Grimed on Recycled Paper,o
Tie OM Wile seg Ike Counity
Mr. Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International,LLC
September 26,2016
Page 2
REPI shall construct all buildings and other structures in the Gateway Triangle
Development using noise attenuation techniques and materials.
The existing communications tower shall be relocated in a manner that does not
adversely impact the safe and efficient use of NMA.
FAA issues a determination of no hazard for any building or other structure
including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas,
elevator shafts, access doors and equipment)to a height up to (but not exceeding)
160 feet above the established elevation of NMA.
Upon receipt of the FAA's determination or any other relevant due diligence, the
Board will review the finding and determine whether any revisions to the policy
are appropriate.
Furthermore, the NAA will not object to any temporary crane used during the
construction of the proposed Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the
following conditions:
FAA issues a determination of no hazard for such temporary crane.
REPI shall adhere to all conditions stipulated by the FAA and coordinate as
required with the NAA throughout construction.
If REPI does not accept the NAA's policy, then the Board directs the Executive
Director to make recommendations on available remedies.
We look forward to working with you in hopes of developing an amiable compromise that
protects the interests of the NAA, the aviation community and general public. Please
continue to provide us with any information, in addition to the FAA's final determination,
that is relevant to the NAA's policy regarding the proposed development.
Sincerely,
Christopher A. R ans y
Executive Director
cc: Nick Casalanguida,Deputy County Manager
Bill Owens, Bond,Schoeneck&King PLLC,NAA Counsel
Mail Processing Center Aeronautical Study No.
Federal Aviation Administration 2016-ASO-25249-OE
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth,TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International,Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations,part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building RES A Building SW Corner Davis Triangle
Location: Naples, FL
Latitude:26-08-15.21N NAD 83
Longitude: 81-46-50.79W
Heights: 8 feet site elevation(SE)
160 feet above ground level(AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore,pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are)met:
As a condition to this Determination,the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting,red lights- Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty(30)minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light,regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to(877)487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
NOTAM)can be issued.As soon as the normal operation is restored,notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2,Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration,be e-filed any time the
project is abandoned or: I
At least 10 days prior to start of construction(7460-2, Part 1)
X_Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height(7460-2,Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s)or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Page 1 of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
a) the construction is started(not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
b) extended,revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
FCC)and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager,Airspace Policy&Regulation,Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington,DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition,please contact Airspace Regulations &ATC
Procedures Group via telephone--202-267-8783 -or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates,heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates,heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights,power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However,this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public-use airports,military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study(if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance,please contact Michael Blaich, at(404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016-ASO-25249-OE.
Signature Control No: 305918483-318678160 DNH)
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
Additional information for ASN 2016-ASO-25249-OE
APF=Naples Municipal Airport
ASN=Aeronautical Study Number
AGL=Above Ground Level
AMSL=Above Mean Sea Level
NM=Nautical Miles
ARP =Airport Reference Point
RWY=Runway
IFR=Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ=Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings,represented by 8 ASNs (2016-ASO-25239-
OE through 25246),representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
2016-ASO-25247-OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings,with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations(14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a)APF: Horizontal Surface--->Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern,proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23,concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization,they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly,the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures,which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR)EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public-use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public-use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
a
TOPO Map for ASN 2016-ASO-25249-OE
C4t z
r y fe ,. ..x
0,. -,
27
i yrs --..."
4=1,1,„
6 \.,‘‘,..,,'*.5 --',..IPM } 4,''''''''.
7."`-'-:cIts
It,ttekitsa
j
meq ,-
F1
s' s
i
t
is•
9m°
4
tee`"
Y
s s e i
t r -§C :,r --mac.-
tr.
t i gier
i
tily.i;:;,:,.. i.', ,,, ..41),4t:1,144 lir eit'i CSO,"t.....,:: -.4 6 ,, ,,.,.. „......-: . - 3„,,,....,,,..„. .___.
jts.,1, - ,,,:'
f,7',,,', ,,, ,at,,ti"®
A ii•,.rti . q. fi'. .,,,
a7;+•,
i,- . `'
Trr .... ¢ e , r ," ', ,...°'.
e
1,- ..—
s*
f 3
g r ± ; ' P:aac J xr. ..cy4aim
I
wy m 2"1"-,..-.....1,
NntHai,,,,..1,:0•:,.9T,.::::::;..,..„.-...,,. ,..`
1..,44,..... ilk4.1.04,:r.,-;'4:•-.ca stitl--.0t:ti10.1-.i.'"'1....'IV"" NM!. ,-
7„..J.,,.„4.::14.1..f?...;Z:11, ,l1",„,,,Gt•-,,. ,,,- ' " - --
i 1
t,
IA ---.01,.#.11:!*:''1, ‘.'7'4' kS'_. 5',44'fl-VtttLckll-Rt..',ii:A.44.!,*it.„::—.„5;:klI:g.ttl;.!',,,.".4i.' - "..-„ --1. ---`4.--:,..:.,". ,:
f,t'-3.:•`i.-4!1 1.0 : .", ' --
li
h` a
xau» '
Bri- Bi
x.'"
A"
z L: • . t."...: -".".","±".-,..'• _ill
4
C
c
4
4.:
e +
4."-
tt
1
t
t,
a Vit-fr d -
iraz.
x` .;?
F,
t- : -
i Ay,'
e-,.. /.7,
Y
5
s 1 + Y
i }a `
F `
Z
t .
r'„„.,, x
t "a} k."..I.; .
Za,y. t d I
4` --
f ,x " a ",
r
8/:,,,,,,::,,,,,,„,:=,
41..f.4..74-„,k q
i k s
r, '
W.
5T _ t,
SA s
r
1!
Ci ' -
j
q_,
4 •
A
tl`
vie w. „,, 1. • ,
96
A.Neil:
x s
v -
i i, '.
a
ec1tym
CCC k c4}+ 8..,v,„, , 4, ,4 t,,2,,,. ..:z.."" 1 - '-' - ' - - '- '
Y'17,
e4
f*-'''f ' -
11.1.'"L.:-.":',!!'-',J.:' aVh•gkli.;'*';- "VI r.-7i- V-ta ,444V.If .i-'1•-..2," .".-, ',- ".
p.i.ft,-- :-----',-,.-"%---,---- :- / ' '*-- * '-'
I tr. s
tk.Ef
1"..41.t75- 13 ._,...i.:..,-.A-1.::.,-.,--:.'‘, -.':-..,--R-L....ib:.......-....
7:- \ T. .- ,.,.--..',,,&..,,..-A•Lisi...t,....., - 1 f 11.,:listil:',.4'i,-..!.. ” ....--- .---; ...:,-..:: -
r-----
t.
7',..''t :L.Wijqtirr'lifijr'A, e i ..a,.! ',...Y 'tit".
00'..V,-t,,4i4' - - ''.-•:;',
1
41'4 -."-- '-'
4" ,"'-'.1" --
4"t-,1 /pitkitt
r
t:.' ,„ Y;''.2,.:1-- '- k
pit,
3. 'x xr.
s x.: 11
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map
forV't1Jj4
ASN 2016-ASO-25249-OE
i;„
t: ,;:
ft-
i
5(5
l , ,i, 1 _ ,..._711.,,,,=,..
Naples Par
6ah (4';
4-*''
letili -- * --
t4'.
MILES
res
32)s= "
a =
tie
I.
0„,„4'' ,,,,f'
fA:'- 'j.:(
14''''''''''.'
7..1:::-It'
f
67'
1''''"'‘,
g.'';:'''''''''''i -***'.':.-:'''''..
1;'::''''
1114*
1 ‘ .""""*"".
I
a:;;'.
Ae3 fr.,7w ' ** -—.
444 go'
k
N{' TAMs/Suppler°rhrs l'" leSr
Class D/E {sf) off. hrslma
ta NAPLES (APF) t3i5,r.
46045 ter;
VI,,.."ATI 4.2?5 , .-- - t
CYPRESS t7 L €i j581,,
CT . . . RP 4
a..l.
1 23
I
400* '' , v r,. WIN O TH
09
s ait.,,_ f f*r,,
r
IA[ ES RCt) J:.sada j
LMtAM!J 340)
LittlektMarc. 8
bldg
N RoyalMARCO2e) 0
04,ISLAN c MK° 's 6 a°`,: i
P l€r
Page 8 of 8
Mini Triangle SSGMPA & MPUD
CCPC -03-01-18
(Continuation of 2-15-18 CCPC Hearing)
REVISED MPUD DOCUMENT PER:
•2-15-18 CCPC Comments
•Several Meetings with staff
between 2-15 and today
FROM
TO
Multi-
Family
(du)
Hotel
(room)
Retail
(sf)
Medical/
General
Office (sf) (3)
Assisted
Living(2) (du)
Self-
Storage(sf)
New Car
Dealership
(sf)
ITE LUC (4)230 310 820 720 254 151 841
Multi-Family
(du)N/A 0.875 79.130 170.851 2.382 2,015.390 200
Hotel (room)1.143 N/A 90.456 195.305 2.723 2,303.846 228.626
Retail (1,000sf)12.637 11.055 N/A 2,159.113 30.100 25,469.231 2,527.481
Medical
/General
Office (3)
(1,000sf)
5.853 5.120 463.153 N/A 13.941 11,796.154 1,170.611
Table 2: Land Use Conversion Table (1)
Table Note(s):
(1)du = dwelling units; sf = square feet; N/A –not applicable.
(2) ITE LUC 254 used for Assisted Living facility based on one bed per dwelling unit.
(3) Medical/General Office Conversions are based on medical office use .
(4)ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Land Use Code Numbers (LUC) are used for the trip generation and
conversion data (i.e. LUC 230 is Multi-Family aka Residential Condominium/Townhouse).
Questions
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 s.f.
MIN. LOT WIDTH 100 feet as measured by frontage on a public right-of-way or internal driveway.
MIN. FLOOR AREA 500 s.f. for commercial structures and 700 s.f. 500 s.f.for residential dwelling units,
except that up to 20% of residential dwelling units may be between 699 and 500 s.f. Hotel
suites/rooms and ALF units, are not subject to a minimum floor area requirement.
MINIMUM YARDS
ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC
STREET 20 feet, measured from the property line, inclusive of any turn lanes.
ALL OTHER MPUD
PERIMETER YARDS
5 feet
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES
40 feet
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
NOT TO EXCEED (ZONED)
160 feet
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT*
NOT TO EXCEED (ACTUAL)
162.8 feet NAVD
PERIMITER LANDSCAPE
BUFFERS
Shall be as set forth in the LDC as applicable, except that the buffer along US 41 may be
reduced in width to 6 feet along the length of the turn lane.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC
STREET
S.P.S.
ALL OTHER MPUD
PERIMETER YARDS
S.P.S
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
NOT TO EXCEED (ZONED)
S.P.S
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
NOT TO EXCEED (ACTUAL)
S.P.S
March 1, 2018
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, March 1, 2018
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Diane Ebert
Edwin Fryer
Karen Homiak
Joe Schmitt
ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn
Tom Eastman
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Eric .lohnson, Principal Planner
Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 85
March 1, 2018
that I haven't had, obviously, time to review.
So, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: All I want to say on your remarks is halleluiah, and that's why we have
a Land Development Code book.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll try to get through it today. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I echo your remarks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind, we'll do the best we can to deal with what is
going to be presented today, and then we'll make a decision afterwards on how to finalize it.
Number 8 on the agenda is the consent. We didn't have consent from last time. There was -- we
expressed the ability to try to hear both consent and the remaining issues with the mini -triangle today. I don't
know how that's going to be possible based on what I've seen come in this week.
And with that in mind, we have the first items up involving the mini -triangle are 9A, 9B, and 9C.
And I'll read them in for the record, and they will be discussed concurrently but voted on separately whenever
we finally vote on then.
9A is continued from February 15th. It's PL20160003084/CPSS2016-3. It's the small-scale plan
amendment for the mini -triangle.
Item B is PL20160003054, and it's the mini -triangle MPUD document, and Item C is the
LDCA-PL20160003642, and it's the LDC changes in relationship to the mini -triangle.
Will all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start with Stan on my right if you've got any disclosures, Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I haven't talked to anybody since the last time, and I got a
bunch of correspondence. Pm not sure -- I don't remember getting something every day, you know, just
something from the airport and something else, and I'm -- I guess I got everything. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why we generally get stuff through staff in a staff report; then
we know what documents we should be reviewing for this meeting. And I don't mind trying to help
applicants get through the system, but I don't know if staffs even reviewed any of these documents. I don't
know which documents staffs reviewed. I don't know which documents we're supposed to be working from
today.
I do know the applicant passed these out in the beginning. Stan,1 don't know if we -- these may be
identical to the ones we received. I don't take anything for granted. I have to compare everything. So I
haven't had time to do that today.
Okay. Ned, your disclosures?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a lot, I guess, to declare. I have exchanged emails and had
conversations with a county commissioner, three Naples City councilors, member of the Naples Planning
Advisory Board, and about 20 or so residents of the Olde Naples neighborhood, and I've also spoken with a
representative of the developer.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: I would like to amend what I said before. I was at a NOAA
conference on sea level rise adaptation the last two days, and Linda Penniman was there, and we talked about
this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have spoke with the airport authority, I have spoke with people in the
CRA, and I have spoke with staff on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have -- since you mentioned the airport authority, I talked
with them and, plus, I received an email before 6 o'clock this morning. I've talked with the applicant at one or
two meetings and various tines on the phone. I've received a lot of correspondence in the form of
attachments, too, from the applicant concerning documents for today's meeting.
I've had meetings with staff, went over everything with them that I could possibly think of at the
time. And I know I've talked to at least two county commissioners, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner
Fiala, about some of the issues that we saw the first time. Other than that, I don't remember anything else
Page 6 of 85
March 1. 2018
right now.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing since last time; just some emails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only issue I had was with Bob Mulhere's assistant asking me to
talk to Bob, but that was prior to the last meeting, and I just commented that I was not going to be at the last
meeting. So I've had nothing since.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Bob, if you want to help us work through this. Well, before you do, I've got to ask Eric a question.
Eric, have you seen all the latest information on this project?
MR. JOHNSON: No, I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: I've not had a chance to read everything the way I would like to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the conclusion of today's meeting, if this is continued, would you
be able to compile all the final documents needed in a fresh staff report so we all know what we're supposed
to be voting on collectively?
MR. JOHNSON: If that's what you'd like me to do, of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 mean, it's just something I think this board needs. So many
documents have come in; we've had stuff piled here. I'm not sure that they've all been reviewed by staff, and
that's one of the sureties we look for.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We'll put together a supplemental staff report
outlining the final documents that will be used for a recommendation to the Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, also, may I ask that when this material is furnished to
us, if the same document is coming back to us but with changes, please red line the changes so that we don't
have to reread the entire documents.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Strikethrough and underline.
MR. BELLOWS: Understood.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thankyou.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, you can go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere hereon behalf of the applicants, Jerry
Starkey. My client is here as well; Alex Pezeshkan and Norm Trebilcock and Barry Jones, who is the civil
engineer on the project.
I'll get right into the presentation. I have all the documents that I handed out on the PowerPoint
which I think is probably the easiest way to go through it with the changes highlighted in yellow.
At your last meeting, the planning board didn't make any motion, but you discussed a lot of items.
We -- I made notes of those items. And after that meeting we began to work back and forth with staff hi
fact, we had a meeting Friday -- this past Friday in the afternoon where all -- many of the staff were in
attendance. Eric was there, Jeff was there, Nick was there, Jamie was there, and we went over the staff
concerns related to, I think, the discussion that you had at your first meeting.
So then after that meeting we began to make changes that we felt would address the staffs concerns.
So I realize it's been a moving target. And maybe today we can get through a lot of this staff such that on the
continuance to the next meeting we won't have as much on your agenda.
And I apologize for the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, thats the goal of all of us. In a project this complicated, we can't have
any unknowns, and that's all we're trying to reach today.
MR. MULHERE: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not saying bad or good of the project at this point. We just don't
want the unknowns that we've got in front of us today.
MR. MULHERE: Agreed. And I think when we get through the stuff, you'll see that we've
Page 7 of 85
March 1, 2018
addressed many of your concerns.
So I -- Mr. Chairman, Pd like to ask your preference or the planning board's preference. I can -- the
GMP is relatively short. It's just a couple of pages. The PUD is probably more complicated. I was planning
on starting with the PUD to go over those changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. But you have -- one of the submissions you sent to
me -- and I don't know if the rest have received it -- is a rewrite of the GMP section.
MR. MULHERE: I do have that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I haven't had time to go through that piece because --
MR. MULHERE: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so many other things came in.
MR. MULHERE: Understood. I was working until, I don't know, 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon
back and forth with staff.
So, no, I understand it's been frustrating. We've put an awful lot -- everyone's put an awful lot -- I'd
like to, you know, express my appreciation. Staff has worked really hard with us, and I realize it's been a
difficult process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: So this is the PUD document that you have, and I've handed out copies to the
County Attorney, the clerk, staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one more interruption, and I'll stop. Bob, would you prefer that we ask
questions as we go through this document by the pages or wait till you're finished with your presentation?
MR. MULHERE: No, I think I'd be happy to take questions as we go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll tum to the Planning Commissioners at the end of every
page or so.
Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Some of my questions transcend one document. And the bulk of my
questions, in order to be resolved to my satisfaction, are going to come up under the GMP.
Should I just -- should I attempt to identify which one of these applications my question is most
relevant to or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What he's going to do is walk through the PUD document. If you've
got issues specific to this document, let's finish at least with that one before -- there's dozens of docrunents
here, so we've got to somehow go through them. So let's start with this one, and as you have questions on this
one, we'll get thein answered the best we can.
MR. MULHERE: I can — look, I can start with the GMP if that's -- whichever is --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to get my questions asked sooner or later, so I'll figure out
how to do it.
MIR. MULHERE: I just thought this was a more complicated -- I know you have a busy agenda, and
I thought, you know, maybe while we're somewhat fi•esh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All I'm trying to figure out is what document I'm looking at, because
what I got from staff was the file that was continued on the February 21 st meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Bob's reading off the document he passed out to us.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob's reading off of this document.
MR. MULHERE: I put that in front of everyone's chair, and that's what I have on the visualizer so
that the public can see it as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know how many other documents you may have to look at, but
that's the one you should be working from.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All I have is the continuation file that was from the February 1st
meeting.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There's been an awful lot of work to by to resolve issues since then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the continuation one that you may have annotated is not one that you
should be using.
Page 8 of 85
March 1, 2018
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that's why we -- we'll listen, we'll get through everything
today, and we'll --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm glad I spent time reading it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you read City Gate?
COMMISSIONER SCIB41TT: I'll put in for a pay raise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got 1,500 pages there.
Okay. Go ahead, Bob.
MR, MULHERE: Okay. At your previous meeting you actually saw this. I've just highlighted some
of the more important phrases in this vision, purpose, and intent. This has not changed from what you saw.
I've simply highlighted some of the -- and the reason that we did this, I think Mr. Fryer had suggested it was
one way, and maybe Mr. Strain as well, to identify what the vision, purpose, and intent was. We didn't have
one in the original document, so we've added this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, anybody have any questions from what's on the overhead right
now? I do.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. You fust.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, arguably, this would be more appropriately brought up in the
GMP. But it's here right in front of us, and I need to make the point that I understand and appreciate your
efforts to tie this down better to what expectations had been created back in 2015 and 2016, which I think was
the goal but, honestly, I don't think we're there yet. And I also -- even though I think an essential part of
getting to where I need to get if I'm going to support this, an essential part is finding the language that the
earlier documents are replete with; language that translates to first-class, state-of-the-art, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, language alone won't do it.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I understand that, and we need objective data and criteria as well.
But suffice it to say for now -- and I'll be coming back to this -- this language, although I appreciate your
effort, and I can see that an effort was made, it is so far removed from what was put out in 2015 that it really
looks like two different projects.
MR. MULHERE: If I could, I think you're talking about language that was used in the proposal or
the -- you know, for the -- because I didn't have any language like that in the PUD at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you just said something that needs to be clarified. You said
language in the proposal. It's actually language in the contract you have with Collier County.
MR. MULHERE: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a different level of standard, so...
MR. MULHERE: No. That's fine. I agree with that.
And so --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: What I'm talking about is something that has your client's logo on it in
the lower left, Real Estate Partners International. It has the Collier County logo on it. It's called Tab 2, land
proposal checklist answers, and it's dated December 15 of 2015.
CHA UVI AN STRAIN: That's part of the --that's an exhibit to the contract, so that's part of the
agreement that the county has with the applicant.
MR. MULHERE: And I understand your concern, and I think we have addressed it. As I get
through this document, I think you will see the concrete evidence that what we proposed is what you're going
to get.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I plan to read some things back to you that don't sound at all like
what I've seen in the material, which I've read pretty carefully, but maybe I've overlooked some things.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on that first paragraph, I notice on the fifth line down towards the end,
it says — where the word MPUD — or letters. It says, MPUD mixed use shall include. And when I was
talking about developing standards in lieu of these conversion tables, that's a key component.
Page 9 of 85
March 1, 2018
You basically said you will include, at a minimum, a residential multifamily development along with
a mix of commercial uses including retail, restaurant, and office uses.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when we start to set standards for this project, that one sentence
becomes important because that's the beginning of the use standards we can build boxes around to fit this
thing in without a conversion table.
The next item down where it says -- the beginning of the next highlight -- shall be two or more
multistory structures with commercial uses generally located on the ground floor. That's another standard.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I've made a list of these out as we've gone through, and I'm going to
bring those up before the day's over with as a suggestion to start developing standards that we can use in lieu
of your conversion tables.
MR. MULHERE: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll go from there.
MR. MULHERE: Got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: You also asked for a definition of transient lodging because one does not exist in
the LDC. They kind of back into the definition of transient lodging through the definition of multifamily. So
we've provided a definition. And that was — you did see that at your fust meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other changes on those pages?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I do have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Is that the end of this slide? As you finish the slide, let me know, and
we'll ask questions.
MR. MULHERE: There's one more. I think -- I'm not sure who asked, but there was a question
about free-standing liquor stores. And after we went back and thought about it, we thought, you might have
an upscale retail wine store, wine and cheese, that kind of a thing. So we made it clear that we would exclude
free-standing liquor stores but allow a free-standing retail wine store.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- any questions about the one -- the overhead that's on
right now?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A few.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since the last meeting, I also met with your group and the administration,
the county administration, including Nick and Jeff and all of us, and there was some conversations involving
both minimums and maximums.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And "A" refers to minimums but fails to refer to maximums, so that would
have to be cleaned up, because you have attempted to suggest maximums now.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I agree with you. That certainly could say for minimum and maximum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then "B," same with commercial uses.
MR. MULHERE: And, Mr. Chairman, they are in the document. We will get to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I don't want it to be assumed that because you just said a
minimum here, somehow we avoid the maximum. I want both of them in there.
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as we go in a little bit further down that page, No. 2, 74,000 square feet
of the following uses are permitted by right. I would suggest adding something to the effect that says
combined with three or more uses from numbers — from No. 2 -- from this number and No. 3 below.
MR. MULHERE: Can you just -- I'm sorry. I kind of missed that. Could you -- I was making a
note on your other comment.
Page 10 of 85
March 1, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 74,000 permitted uses (sic) by right have to be done in combination
with others. That's all I'm trying to suggest. You previously, in your vision statement, mentioned three types
of commercial uses that would be used. I'm suggesting that we don't -- by the permitted right, it's only
permitted with a combination of some other of those uses. You can wordsmith it, but that's what I'm getting
at.
MR. MULHERE: Are you suggesting -- so are you meaning office or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back up to the top.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said -- in the vision statement you said, shall include, at a minimum --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- multifamily development mix of commercial uses including retail,
restaurant, and offices.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just saying, when you get into your permitted use, they can't be
permitted uses by themselves. They have to be in combination with at least two other -- there'd have to be
three of them in combination.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that same language needs to be mimicked on No. 3 below. You can't
do just the office and medical. You have to do in combination.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And we have those requirements in there, but I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have them there, but --
MR. MULHERE: You haven't seen them yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — just like your conversion table, you're going to walk into Development
Services, you're going to ask for certain things, and you're going to say, here's my permitted uses by right.
The other language may never be seen. I want to make sure it's clear everywhere on this document and it's
consistent.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it may be -- it may be easier -- well, IT take a look at it. Thank you. I
understand your concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. C -- how much of No. C is on this slide? All of it or just that one
top piece?
MR. MULHERE: The substantive part is on the next page, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's go to the next page.
MR. MULHERE: 1 didn't change anything there, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, after No. C, the following uses are permitted through the
utilization of land use conversion matrix, and it goes on. But they must be included in the total allocation of
square footage, including -- and including two other uses from 2 or 3 above. So if you're going to do an ALF
or you're going to do indoor air conditioner (sic) passenger vehicle or you're going to do self -storage, that's
fine --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but you've got to have two other uses from above and, at the same time,
it's got to be -- those have got to be part of the cap on the square footage, which I know you expect that, but --
MR. MULHERE: We have a cap in there, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but this has got to be part of that.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: Over here. Eric Johnson, principal planner.
I just wanted to point out in lowercase Paragraph c, that there were two minor — very minor changes
Page 11 of 85
March 1, 2018
that weren't highlighted, and that's in C2, the word "air conditioner" or "air conditioned" -- well, actually, I'm
sorry. Not in this particular document. In a different document the C had been changed from uppercase to
lowercase. But I thunk the word "storage" had been added where it says "internal to the site and storage not
visible." So the word "storage" was added, which is fine. I just wanted to point that out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I have a question about it anyway, so we'll get there.
That -- actually I highlighted that last sentence. It says, not visible from an arterial or collector road.
Well, if it's indoor air-conditioned, how did you expect it to be visible? I mean, do you mean you've got
something else here that isn't indoor air conditioned? Because that's what this paragraph basically says.
MR. MULHERE: I think that was a request -- look, going back over the last year, I think that came
up as a request from staff. They said, you're not going to be able to see this from the roadway; you know,
state that. I could be wrong. I thought that was the basis for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just didn't want that comment to insinuate that you were thinking of
outdoor storage.
MR. MULHERE: We're not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't mind a statement that says no outdoor storage will be
allowed?
MR. MULHERE: Nope. I think it's in the document somewhere, but we'll come across it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 3, your new car dealership, I notice the warranty bays and the
repair bays, quantity -wise we may want to consider that. Are you going to be tearing out transmissions and
rear ends and all that work right there in this rather elaborate facility that you're planning to build? I mean, it
doesn't seem to fit with the vision that we've seen, so...
MR. MULHERE: I think there were -- I'll defer to my client.
MR. STARKEY: We've had discussions --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry, you'll need to come up and identify yourself for the mike and use the
microphone.
MR. STARKEY: Jerry Starkey.
We've had discussions with luxury auto dealers subject to NDAs, but they would be auto dealers like
Lamborghim, Ferrari, Tesla and that magnitude. They have urban dealerships, and they have service bays
that are completely enclosed on upper floors. A Ferrari dealer might have 30,000 square feet, I think
Lamborghim dealer would be similar, and that would include a showroom on the floor. It would include
offices above. It would be no outdoor storage of cars.
And then they would, typically -- for a small boutique dealer like that, they would probably have six
or eight service bays, and they look -- it sort of looks like a clean --you know, a science lab clean room. I
mean, they're Spic and Span clean. They do principally service there, and I think they ship out anything that's
major.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern would be on limiting how those are built and operated. And
typical to dealerships -- and we've started standards for those quite a while back when we allowed the Top
Hat dealership to go up on -- where the King Richard's park used to be. Bays have to have certain required
limitations on how long a door can be open for, where its got to be closed, whether you've got a car wash
involved.
These could be very noisy operations, and it may be disruptive to the rest of your site. We just want
to --and I know you don't want that. We just want to make sure that language is here so no matter who
would attempt to do this, they know there's restrictions on how it can be done. So we would look to you to
come up with that as a starting point.
MR. STARKEY: We view -- if we were to land a Ferrari or Lamborghini -- I mean, there's a Tesla
dealer showroom at Waterside. But if we were to have a use like that, we view that as a luxury retail use. I
mean, there might be an Apple store next door, a jewelry store, or a fine -dining restaurant, and all of the
activities would be vertical and not part of the street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And that's more the reason why we need to defile the extent of these
and their operation.
MR. STARKEY: I think it says indoor dealership. So the goal -- our goal would be everything's
Page 12 of 85
March 1, 2018
enclosed. We certainly don't want it to be disruptive to our other retail uses, office, residence, a hotel, you
know. We -- it's against our interest. We don't envision a dealership in the traditional manner. That's why
we have ai indoor dealership.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as I've said to you many times, I know you and your partners and the
ability that you have to do really good projects. And my concern has never been as much what you want to
do and intend to do but what would happen if you weren't involved for some reason.
Always, the fallback position to protect the taxpayers has to be, what's the worst-case scenario, and
that's all I'm trying to do is get us to a scenario that no matter who were to do this, whether it be you or
anybody else, the outcome is still what we expect.
MR. STARKEY: Sure. And, respectfully, I think we're on the same page. We want to make sure
we maintain some economic and market flexibility and accomplish the iconic catalytic project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: At the last meeting I believe you told us -- I'll have to go back and look
at the minutes because it was asked -- that this 30,000 square feet would be a showroom only. There would
be no maintenance involved.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. You can look at the minutes, because I know I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll look at the minutes, because it changes.
MR. MULHERE: It's been in there from the beginning.
I think I can address the concerns. What we're talking about is repairs that are associated with new
cars. And so some of the stuff that you suggested won't apply because we've already said it's going to be
indoors. So we're not going to have, you know, doors opening and closing. But I'll take a look at that, and
we can incorporate some of that into here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You understand what the protection issues are?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just come back with suggested language for that, and it will help.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, do you have something? Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. This goes back to understandings that had been formed back in
2015 when the contract with the county was entered into. And my question is, was there any discussion of
uses such as assisted living facilities, self -storage, aid car dealerships?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know. I was not part of that negotiation process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're talking about the original purchase agreement?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm talking about, again, going back to this document which I am told
expresses the County Commission's understanding of what this project was to look like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can -- rather than have someone have to say something, I'll tell you
what -- I've got it right here. Here's the addenda to the original agreement. And it talked about off-street
parking, parking garages, total office, business, work/live units, residential, hotel floors, common area, retail
below work, retail below hotel. I don't find a specific reference to an ALF or a car dealership there on the
tables that were referred to as Exhibit 3 and the addendum.
Jerry?
MR. STARKEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I read through, I guess, about 10 pages of descriptive material
identifying or creating the image where there had seemed to be a meeting of the minds, and I didn't find
anything like an assisted living facility, a self -storage, or a car dealership.
MR. STARKEY: The car dealership we view as a retail use, and it certainly wasn't in the proposal;
neither was self -storage or ALF. As we filed our application, we were looking at, you know, a better
understanding of the market and looking at some flexibility.
We had been approached by at least one luxury dealer, and so we felt -- when we discussed with
staff, we felt like we needed to specifically state an auto dealer. I mean, the likelihood of an auto dealer is
probably a pretty low probability, but it's possible, assuming it's approved. But we needed to get that in there
Page 13 of 85
March 1, 2018
so that if we had a Tesla service center or a Latmborghini dealer, which you could find in many urban retail
locations, it enhances. It would be a very much enhancement. It would fall into your luxury, high-end
situation, and so we needed to have that in the code.
Consistent with that, there has been a demand in the Naples area for supercar storage and also a
demand — when you have a lot multifamily and condos, a demand for more storage. So there are also urban
storage facilities that are completely encased in a building that looks like an office building, but once you ride
the elevator up or you take the car up on the elevator and put it into the bin, it actually has a use that benefits
the people in that mixed-use community as well as the community at large.
So with, you know, so many people --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get that, and I understand that.
MR. STARKEY: So to accomplish that, which we see as consistent with the overall positioning of
the community, we had to build it in, and so --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, but you didn't really limit it to the way you've just described it
using words like luxury, high-end, fine -dining restaurant et cetera. You talk about Lamborghinis and cars of
that caliber, but there's nothing in here to preclude low-end stuff.
MR. STARKEY: No, but my understanding from discussions with staff is that we're sort of limited
to your code, and we're limited to your descriptions of uses, and I don't think that we have the ability to say
the auto dealership will be, you know, a Cadillac, a Mercedes, a BMW, a Lamborghini.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe not by brand name, but there are other words that could be
used, or you could say --
MR. STARKEY: Well, I would refer to staff and to you, respectfully, and if we can come up with a
descriptor that fits legally within the body and it cast it, you Imow, sort of above the Volkswagen or above the
Ford or -- you know, everybody's view is a bit subjective. We're all in the same —
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. STARKEY: We're not trying to accomplish --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that is going to be essential to getting me onboard, I mean,
absolutely essential. It's not the only thing that rm going to need to see --
MR. STARKEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- but it's apiece of what I'm going to need to see.
Another thing -- and I did a word search of this document, the December 2015 document, looking for
the word "flexibility," because that word comes up a lot in your 2018 documents, and it was actually not used
once that I could find.
Again, I understand how a developer needs flexibility, but to a reasonable degree, perhaps -- and it
needs to be counterbalanced and weighed against the need of the community to know exactly what standards,
what minimum standards are going to apply.
MR. MULFIERE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And until we get to a win-win -- and that's not the only piece that's
important to me, but that is an essential piece.
MR. MULF[ERE: Sure.
MR. STARKEY: And I think the flexibility and these three "alternative use" just arose out of as we
worked through the period between the contract and the application, the understanding and the market's
dynamic, the market's changing, and if one use becomes inviable, not viable, then what are other uses that
could be substituted to make sure that it's a vibrant, active, transformative, catalytic project.
And so, you know, these aren't -- these aren't items that we are necessarily planning. They're items
that could be used if a preferred use wasn't available because there was no market demand.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand thatyou're within the upper limits of permissible traffic on
the adjacent roads due to the fact that they're not included in the -- I don't have the terminology correct -- but,
however, even though what you're proposing was 875 peak p.m. trips, that comes to mind, in order to go that
high, we want to be sure, at least I want to be sure, that this really is a first-class, premiere operation rather
than something that is -- that doesn't measure up either to the expectations of the County Commission in 2015
or the hopes and expectations of the surrounding community, including the people in the City of Naples.
Page 14 of 85
March 1. 2018
MR. STARKEY: Right. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything through the page that's in front of us here
today?
Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like me to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You need to jump in as we go along, yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. All right. I just want to make sure you understand the change with
the insertion of the word "storage" because that now means that access, you know, can be visual. So if they
put man caves in, you know, the access, I believe, can be visible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a good point.
MR. MULHERE: There's always been the intent. A car has to get into the building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just like the repair bays and warranty bays; you've simply got to show
us how you're protecting the -- I guess the amenities of the surrounding area.
MR. MULHERE: Well, there's a garage. And so even if we didn't have these uses, there's a garage.
So a vehicle pulls into the garage and parks. In this case, they may pull into the garage, drive up two floors,
and enter internal to the building into some use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're just going to have to — when we get the standards written for
this -- they've got to cover everything.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I don't know how it could be clearer that you're not going to be visible
from the exterior.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, we've got a parking garage. We're all familiar with multi -story parking
garages. Cars enter a garage. They drive up, and then they enter some other use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Bob, this may be a good time to bring up something else --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since you're trying to get into the detail to help us understand things.
Where is the SDP copy? Where's a copy of the SDP for this board? Site Development Plan? Where is the
Site Development Plan?
MR. MULHERE: We haven't submitted it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then you're in violation of your agreement then, because your
agreement says that in 12 months you'll be supplying an SDP before the outcome of the GMP and the PUD.
Part of the intent of that would be so we could probably see exactly where you're heading. So you've not even
developed an SDP yet?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't think it -- look.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, did you look at Page 120 of your agreement?
MR. MULHERE: I don't have that agreement. I haven't been involved in the agreement. I don't
think it said we had to do a Site Development Plan. I recall --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it does. Page 120, 12 months after the effective date of the contract.
MR. MULHERE: I recall that we have to have a plan. I don't think it referred to the county's
required Site Development Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me put that up for you, and we'll talk about it.
MR. MULHERE: And we do have a plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All I'm suggesting, if we had the ability to see that plan, it might
certainly help all of us understand what it is you're actually hying to build on this site versus what you -- what
your document says.
Project development timeline. Site Development Plan, SDP, 12 months after the effective date of the
agreement. Okay. Well, that agreement was signed in May of 2016. It was -- an addenda was issued in
September of 2016. That means you've passed that threshold by many months in either case.
All Pm suggesting, if you had that SDP and we could see it, if it's one of your working drawings you
haven't submitted yet, why don't you give it to us, because it would really be helpful. It was supposed to be in
the timeline already.
Page 15 of 85
March 1. 2018
MR. MULHERE: We have not commenced the Site Development Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the process we're going through today was supposed to be completed
in 18 months from the effective date of the process. Which means we had an overlap. And I'm just
suggesting that would have been a really good thing to know.
MR. STARKEY: Respectfully, the contract has many provisions, and I don't think it's appropriate to
negotiate that in this forum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sent it to us.
MR. STARKEY: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just bringing up the documents that you entered into the record.
MR. STARKEY: They are in the record, but I'm not prepared to go to other provisions of the same
document that state that the parties, including the county, are diligently pursuing the zoning application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't concerned about pursuing the zoning application. As far as the
help, that document would have provided -- and maybe that was on the minds of those parties involved,
because if you were to supply an SDP and concurrently with the review of the Comp Plan and the LDC, we'd
know exactly what you're talking about, and that's what shows up on the contract.
So that's the reason I brought it up, Jerry. If you don't have it, then so be it. We won't be able to use
that. But it would -- I had to ask because it's there. It's a requirement.
MR. MULHERE: Of course, we do have architectural plans, landscape plans that are detailed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you've told us those don't necessarily apply because you've got this
flexibility need, so all the buildings -- and they're gorgeous plans. If we could get that there, it would a home
run. But now we're told, no, we've got to have flexibility; that may not be what we're building.
So, Bob, typical to all the PUDs we've done in Collier County that I can recall, we get a site plan, and
when a developer offers renderings, we get those, and we attach them to the PUD; that's what gets built. In
this case we're told no.
So it's the first time around for a few things in this one.
MR. MULHERE: I guess I would personally characterize that a little bit differently. I would say we
have every intent of building what you see there. When we say "conceptual," it means the architectural
design might not be the same. We're stili talking about a minimum of two multistory buildings, and that's
what my clients intend to build. We put that into the document.
We're talking about a mixture of uses. We put minimums and maximums. So we think we are -- we
are working very hard to ensure that what you want is what you're going to get and still maintain -- there's a
significant investment and risk. We still want to have some market flexibility. That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,, Bob, I think we're all to the point where we understand that, and we're
willing to provide that. We've just got to establish the minimum and maximum standards so we get a product
we can live with. That's all I'm asking.
MR. MULHERE: And we have no objection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this will be a push and shove --
MR. MULHERE: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- till now, all through today, and probably next time till we get there. But 1
think we'll get there if we all just stay on the same focus.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I'm 100 percent in agreement.
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: One thing on here, the very first page -- and you're right, an SDP would
be very helpful, because right here you're telling us it shall be two or more. I mean, you don't -- it's like
you're trying to put 20 pounds in a five -pound bag to me. And when I see the word "catalyst" I'm thinking
catastrophe, because we have no idea what you're really trying to put there.
MR. MULHERE: You know, I'm sorry, but the word "catalyst" is not our word. It is a word that's
contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. And I can look up the definition, but I believe it
means to spur, to drive, those kinds of things. It doesn't mean disaster.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on, Bob. Get past the next page.
Page 16 of 85
March 1.2018
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I know there are members -- well, first of all, I know the
airport authority's here for the one this afternoon, and I know there are members of the public here. We're
probably only going to be working on the mini -triangle project at least through the morning. So the earliest
we'll probably get to the other — sports park will be this afternoon. I think the airport's here for the
mini -triangle. So what I'll probably do to accommodate the mini -triangle people is, before lunch, which we
normally take at 12 o'clock, we'll ask for any public speakers; that way you can be freed up after the morning,
and then we'll continue on this if we need to in the afternoon. But I can at least tell you if you're here for the
sports park or City Gate, it won't be until after lunch today, so...
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you.
There was a continent on behalf of the cell tower operator. Legal counsel made a comment that there
was a concern about this not be deemed to be a nonconforming use in the period between now or the approval
of this and its either lease expiration or relocation.
And I've drafted this language. I don't know if it will satisfy the cell tower company, but I thunk it
addresses exactly what they requested, which says, the cell tower located within this MPUD at 2045 (sic)
Davis Boulevard may remain in place and in operation as a legal conforming -- should be "use," I'm sorry,
there's an extra "s" on there -- until such time as the current lease expires or is terminated early by agreement
of the parties of the lease.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just have a comment that I would recommend replacing "legal
nonconforming uses," because I'm not really sure what that means, with "permitted use," because it will be a
permitted use.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, that makes sense.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I also understand from Ms. Cole, who will probably be speaking later,
that the cited address number is incorrect, so she can correct that for the record.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you, Heidi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now -- and that's the only issue on that page. Anybody else have any
questions?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move to the next page.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are we on Page 4 now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're on a table that's found on Page 3.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh.
MR. MULHERE: That's the land -use conversion table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first table you had up, can you go back to that one.
That's -- actually, Table 1 is ahead of Table 2. You had it up there a minute ago, Bob. There you go.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. We've actually revised that. The document that you have has revisions. I
can put it on the visualizer if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you mean there's another revision based -- after you did --
MR. MULHERE: No, the document you have is accurate. When I did this PowerPoint -- we did it,
like, at 4 o'clock yesterday.
CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: So the PowerPoint's not accurate. The handout is. The handout you need
to put on the overhead then.
MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm going to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show us which one's accurate.
MR. MULHERE: We had some back and forth as late as 4:30 yesterday with staff regarding how
we reference these by -right uses in the intensity. And so this Table 1 now actually refers back to the previous
section that identifies that 210 is the by -right number, that 152 is the by -right number of hotel unit/rooms and
74,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses and 60,000 square feet of medical and general office. So we've
actually cited the sections and, if you go to those sections, that's where that language is provided.
Page 17 of 85
March 1, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions about Table I?
MR. MULHERE: It should provide greater clarity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? Table 1 that's on the overhead; how's that. You and I have a
different version of Table 1, so...
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would just comment on the last box where it references medical general
office. The language that's used under Section 3 is professional or medical office. So I think they should be
consistent, whichever you choose.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. Anybody else?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, this table talks about by -right density and intensity. If there's going to
be flexibility on the four uses listed on this table, this would be a good place to put the ranges that we finally
settle on as a recommendation to the Board for the flexibility.
MR. MULHERE: We actually have another table that establishes minimums and maximums. We
haven't got there yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you're saying this is your by -right, and you're relying on that
other table to get there through conversions. I'm telling you that before today's over, I'm going to strongly
suggest, take that ridiculous conversion process and throw it out the door. I appreciate Norm's billable hours
he must have had to create that thing, but he can't be the only one in Collier County that fully understands it,
and I don't think it's needed if we write this thing correctly.
You're still going to come out with the flexibility you need because you'll have ranges, and all you've
got to do is hit the standards, hit the ranges, and never break that cap for the traffic.
MR. MULHERE: Subject to the trip cap and the maximum square footage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And nobody has to sit here and try to figure out what you possibly
mean by this conversion table. That's all I'm trying to get to.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. And maybe they can be combined. Ijust was -- I just wanted you to know
that we do have a table that has the minimums and maximums. If the conversion, you know, doesn't move
forward and we still have those minimmms and maximums, perhaps we have one table that identifies both the
by -right and the minimums and maximums.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And nobody has to do a calculation that can go in two different directions.
MR. MULHERE: Right. I got that. And I'm sorry, I did this PowerPoint, and then there were
changes -- there were very few, but there were a couple of changes very late in the afternoon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know exactly how you feel.
MR. MULHERE: All right. Let me get back to the -- can I go back to the computer, or do I -- thank
you.
So, I mean, I'm not sure how much time we want to spend on this. I can ask Norm to come up and
talk about the conversion table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we even spend time on it, I need to understand your reaction to
my suggestion as well as the panel's. It's not -- I mean, we've all got to buy into a different methodology if
that's the way it's going to go. I'm not hying to waste anybody's time.
MR. MULHERE: I need to talk to Mr. Starkey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's postpone the discussion of the conversion -- we're going to have
a break at 10:30.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can figure it out and come back, and we'll discuss it when we get
back from the break on that one issue.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. That makes sense.
So this was the -- you know, and, again, this could be combined, as you suggested, with Table 1,
assuming the conversion table doesn't go forward, and then what we would do is identify, you know, by -right
minimums and maximums. And then there is a -- as you can see, there is a maximum 200,000 combined for
the cormmercial uses, but we have to make that clear that that applies to all of those uses, which it does. But,
Page 18 of 85
March 1. 2018
you know, if we're not going to use the conversion, then it would be subject to the trip cap, and it would be
subject to the maximum square footage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from this table, the Planning Commission? Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Which one are we looking at? The one in our packet or the one on
the --
MR. MULHERE: They're the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's on the table here is the one that --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, they're not. They're not the same. The retail category should be the
one that's in your -- the language should be what's in your package, not what's there. So it should read,
commercial uses listed under PUD sections A1B2, but the number switched to 67,000.
MR. MULHERE: That -- and let me go over that change. At one point we wanted to combine or we
thought we'd combine for maximum flexibility the minhnum amount of office and the mimmmum amount of
retail, which we agreed to in our meeting on Friday with staff. So we combined it at one point to 67,000
square feet combined.
But it was suggested that we should separate those because we should have a minimum for office
and a minimum for the retail uses. So we have separated those. And now, as you can see on the visualizer --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you did is under the medical general, which would be
professional general, based on Heidi's input --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you started out, let's say, at 60. That's an easy one. Fifty percent below
would be 30-; 50 percent above would be 90-.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your by -right density/intensity would be somewhere between 30- and
90,000 square feet for office, but you'll be no less than 30-, no greater than 90-.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The manner lin which it would be built or by whatever standards we
develop for the number of buildings and the mix of uses and the setbacks and other things that are in your
document. That's exactly a good example of why we -- and then your -- the cap on that would have to be
intermixed with the rest of the uses you'd put on the project, so you would never get above the traffic cap
that's allowed on the property.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of everything. You don't need a -- that's why you wouldn't
need this conversion table. It just messes up the works. But think about it during break, and that's what I'm
going to --
MR. MULHERE: The same -- and we would need correct — if you look under the commercial uses,
the minimum is 37,000. The by -right is 74-. If we apply the same 50 percent either way, it would be
100- and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wouldn't be 200,000.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. That 200,000 is an overall cap.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the PowerPoint's wrong, the handouts wrong, and thats a new number
we're going to get.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hotel rooms, because they're like a residential component, you're
looking at the possibility of not being able to put a hotel room in, but if you do and you want to, you can go
up to 228.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the conversion of the hotel rooms, if they were all converted,
would end up with a maximum of 377 residential.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you know -- and 1 don't know if Norm's aware of it. Do you
know the new numbers that potentially are being looked at for the Trio's hotel and residential mix?
Page 19 of 85
March 1, 2018
OR [_ : I_ •
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They've requested an acknowledgment that they could go from 48
hotel to 84 hotel, and the 12 residential units would still remain. In the end, I don't know what's going to
come out of this, but I caught that in an administrative discussion with staff on a ZVL.
So when you come up, Norm, for discussion on traffic, we've got to see how that affects that main
entrance. So, anyway, just a sidenote to this whole thing.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair?
MR. MULHERE: At this point I'll just use the visualizer. I don't think there are any other
discrepancies but, again, there were changes made at 4:30.
The document you have in front of you and that's on the visualizer is the most recent one.
MR. JOHNSON: Should we add that citation there?
MR. MULHERE: Well, if we combine the tables, as Mr. Strain suggested, that's already in Table 1,
so it would be there.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There were some, like, footnotes below that table. That should be
the next page.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's what I'm getting at.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just as an aside, this minimum requirement, from an enforcement standpoint, is
meaningless.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's what?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's meaningless. So you're putting in a minimum requirement of 30,000 square
feet of office space, for example. The project's complete and there's no office space. Now what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how would it get complete if they don't use -- they don't submit
something for the minimum?
MR. MULHERE: We have a trigger. We have language in there -- we'll get to that -- that says that
at the last -- that the final phase, if we don't -- haven't met the minimums, they have to be included in final
phase or we don't get any permitting or CO for that final phase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there is some problems with that language, but we'll get to that. But
they did attempt to address that, Jeff, so maybe we can see; if it's not adequate enough, it can be sharpened
up.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Yes, sir.
So, obviously, the -- these establish the minimums and maximums and other conditions that were
applicable or are applicable, as we've written it, to the conversion matrix. But maybe we can just go over
them anyway because they do establish the minimums and maximums.
See it starts out with, if we were to use the conversion table, any increase in density or intensity
would result in a commensurate decrease in another use or increase, depending on whether it was an increase
or decrease.
The second one establishes that 875 p.m. peals hour trip count.
There's your minimum of 105 multifamily and the maximum of 377. There's a maximum of 228
hotel units. We've already discussed that. That was also in the table. And then there's the 37,000 square feet
of retail or other related uses, restaurant and personal services and so on so forth, and then the minimum of
30,000 square feet and a maximum of 90,000 square feet of medical and general office -- professional office;
to be changed to professional office to be consistent, or professional will be changed to general, because I
think that's the more accepted term, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you finish with this page, Stan's got a question.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. And then, you know, the total square footage of all commercial uses shall
not exceed 200,000 square feet, which we did agree to.
And then the last paragraphs, this one and this one and the one that will be on the next page dealt
with the conversion matrix to those other three uses, which we don't have by right but we would have to
Page 20 of 85
March 1, 2018
convert. So we have an overall cap, as you've suggested, that would be also subject to that cap.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go, we're going to be entertaining questions from that page.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, you're first up.
You need to go back to that page, Bob.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Going with what Jeff said, or a question lie asked, I've seen a
lot of projects come through that don't complete. You know, there's a question, is there ever buildout. And
you said if they don't hit the minimum, the project's not done. So what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they've got an empty piece of land they don't get to build on until the
minimum standards are met.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is it actually that, that you have to build every minimum of
everything? There's wording that -- that that says.
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's right here. And so the language in xiii provides for a number of
scenarios that would trigger withholding -- the county withholding further permitting if we haven't met the
minimums.
And so you have, one, construction has begun on building or buildings that satisfy the minimum
requirements, and, yes, that's all of them. This will have to be specifically spelled out, 37,000 square feet of
retail and 30,000 square feet of office, because we've now separated hose uses at the request of staff. So
there is -- there is that clause that says, no building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last
undeveloped MXU tract -- we have three tracts -- unless construction has begun on a building or buildings
that satisfy these minimum requirements or, two, certificates of occupancy have been issued for these
minimum requirements or, three, these minimum requirement amounts will be accomplished by the
construction of the building described in the requested permit, which is the final phase.
MR. KLATZKOW: So he can do 67,000 square feet of retail and do no office.
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's some changes needed to that paragraph.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what it says.
MR. MULHERE: No, we're going to -- I know it does, but I just mentioned, we will do a minimum
of 30- and minimum of 37-.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, it's kind of hard to review something that's not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's why they're coming back.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- that's not finalized. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You know, and it's hard to review something staff hasn't done a
final staff report on, but we'll get through as much as we can today --
MR. MULHERE: Sony.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to give you guidance.
MR. MULHERE: It was changing at 4:30 last night. I'm sorry. I did the very best I could to address
these changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, Bob.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Also, if what I think I'm hearing you say is that you would remove the
conversion table and you'd have minimum and maximums for each use, then we would eliminate that
by -right where it's 60,000 and 74-, and you would just have --
MR. MULHERE: A range.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- the uses with the max and minimum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we kind of got out of consequence here. We got to the last item before
we talked about the other items. There is changes needed in quite a few paragraphs. And let's go back.
Stan, did you get your question at least answered or not?
Page 21 of 85
March 1, 2018
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I guess I got it answered, but 1 still -- you know, if they don't
build the last part, then it's just -- the project's not built out right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be built out to the point of the other two tracts.
Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they would still have occupancy permits for what they've already
done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If you guys feel there's a needed change in there, then we can
change it.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I don't. If they don't build the last one, I don't care.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it depends on what they build in the first two. And maybe that's
where -- since the first two will be the beginning phases of the project, we've got to make sure that some of
the intention of what's needed to be a mixed-use component that meets the standards are in those first two
phases, and then the last phase cleans it up.
If they build 10,000 in the first phase, they still need to complete 10,000 more; by the time they get to
the last phase, it will have to be part of that. Because they can have multiple buildings and multiple
components including residential and commercial and parking throughout those buildings.
So the last building's going to contain part of it. We just need to make sure that if it can't contain all
of it, we get pieces of the other in the first two parts.
This is a much more complicated scenario to try to figure out than what this started out as. But we'll
figure out a way -- we'll do our best to get there.
Jerry, did you want to say something?
MR. STARKEY: Sure. I have two comments, and one is that when a project doesn't complete, it's
typically market driven. So it's not that the owner of the property doesn't want to develop the last parcel or
subdivision and make money. It's that something's happened in the marketplace.
The other thing that -- at the request of the meeting last Friday with many members of the senior staff
that we put in is that if at the end we felt like we would be below a minimum, it was suggested that we put the
provision in here that says we could come back to the city -- come back to the County Commission and
request a reduction of a minimum, and that would be subject to majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners. So we put that in as well.
So our intent is to build the wonderful conununity we're all looking at. We can't control the market.
If we get to the last situation and we need 10 more thousand feet of something or another 100 units of
something and the market's not there, we probably would be a responsible citizen, come back and say, we
want to continue finishing this. This is where we think the market is.
The County Commission would say, we agree, or the County Commission would say, we don't
agree, and we would sit and wait for the market to change.
So our intent is to build a document that allows the county and the citizens to accomplish your
legitimate goals and to simply give us the economic flexibility to build the project we all expect.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move back to this page, and then we'll go back to the
page that we werejust on. I'd like to take it in order so it doesn't get any more confusing than it already is.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many -- does anybody have any questions about the page in front of
us here?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I don't think Stan's question has been answered yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan, do you think your question's been answered?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. So ask your own.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, again, it has to do -- in my view it has to do with
allocation of risk, the risk of not being able to complete the third building, let's say, as a result of changing
market conditions. The way it's been described tome, the way I understand it is that 100 percent of that risk
would fill on the county.
MR. MULHERE: I don't get it. I don't --
Page 22 of 85
March 1, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. Can you try to explain that a little bit better?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ill try. In order to achieve the agreed-upon mix, we have to wait for
the third building to get built and permitted, correct?
MR. STARKEY: No. And it's possible --
CHA UVIAN STRAIN: In essence, yes.
MR. STARKEY: It's possible that three buildings are built at once, two buildings are built at once,
or one building followed by one or followed by two. So there's a lot of sequencing that could occur,
including one phase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think where Ned's -- he's right. You don't have to put all the minimums in
the first two buildings.
MR. STARKEY: Surely not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the -- right. And I don't disagree with you, but 1 think that gets to the
question. So if you don't put all the minimums in the first two buildings and you're forced to put them in the
third building to meet this criteria, how do we get there? Because in his terms, the county will be left holding
the bag. So all we're suggesting is, somehow we've got to address that.
MR. STARKEY: Sure. And I would address the portion of the risk is that we estimate this is a
project with a cost of probably 200- to $250 million, and if we go through the first two phases and have
invested 100- or $150 million or $175 million I would suggest that we have a pretty vested interest in
addressing the risk, and that's why we put in the provision that rather than sit idle, if market conditions
change, we have the ability to come back to the County Commission, and the County Commission can
address its vested interest and say, should we consider an alternative to make sure this catalytic project gets
maximized at this point, or are we comfortable simply waiting. And that would be the county's ability to
address its risk.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the wait could last forever.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they can't come out of the ground with all of the minimums to start
with, though, Ned. So we've got to provide some provisions that they can complete it as the project's
completed. They just can't do it -- it's not even practical to ask them to do that.
So I would think that if you guys have a minimum amount of things that you know you'll want to put
in the first two phases, we ought to talk about that or at least come back with that. I don't know to -- I don't
think it's practical to say you've got to meet all the minimums in the first two parcels and then whatever you
do on the third one, that's gravy.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe a third of the minimums.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just suggesting. We've got to do something like that.
MR. STARKEY: Some of the uses are binary. Like, for instance, the hotel. You know, we currently
have a hotel in one building with a modest amount of retail on the ground floor. If there's not a demand for a
hotel, then we shan't build a hotel, and it's not because maybe we don't want one, it's not because everyone
don't want one, but maybe there's just not a demand for a hotel at this particular time.
If that happens to be the third phase, you've accomplished probably your minimums or your
maximums on all the other uses, probably not all the max -- maybe some of them, and you come to that third
building as the property owner who has invested, you know, tens and hundreds of millions of dollars and you
look at that last parcel and say, you know, there's not a demand for a hotel. We want to go up to the higher
range of the residential and build residential and some more retail or half -- you know, a bit of retail, a bit of
office, a bit of residential and, in that scenario, we wouldn't have accomplished the minimums until we get to
the end, but we have a vibrant, two-phase project or two buildings or three buildings, but not the last
situation.
And so I think that we have a joint interest, the owner, developer, and the county, and that as it
progress, I think we've got the built-in assurance that the county's issues get addressed. But the market is an
issue that really binds the county and the property owner. It's not something either of us really control, as
much as we'd like to.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. I don't want to propose something that's unreasonable,
but -- well, maybe a solution is to find a way to assure that if the first two phases are completed that we are all
Page 23 of 85
March 1, 2018
possessed of a high level of confidence today that they're going to be first-class, premiere, premium things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, those terns are so ambiguous. And when it comes to land codes, I
don't know how we could even get there with that. But we can't look at it like that. I think we ought to look at
the opportunity for that third one to fill in what we can't -- what doesn't happen in the first two, to the extent it
doesn't but get some assurances that there will be some mix in the first two that we can rely on. And I think
you guys, given some time to think about it, could come back with something creative enough to try to fit that
together.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We don't have an architectural review board in this county like the
city does to review plans and make that kind of determination. So, I agree, that's an ambiguous -- though I
understand, Ned, we have no way of making that determination.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't want to cast --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess the county commissioners could. I don't lmow what -- you
know, if they wanted to do it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: On certain automobile manufacturers or certain hotel -- but 1 think we
all know what we would like to see or something substantially similar or equivalent to -- mention a
name -- Marriott. It doesn't have to be Marriott, but it has to be that or equivalent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we can't -- we can't do that, Ned. That's not how land codes are set up.
You can't differentiate trade names, brand names, and things like that.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's like residential is residential, whether they put in luxury apartments or they
put in affordable housing apartments.
COMMISSIONER SCMIITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start getting into a broader range of issues that develop trying to
describe what we want in parts of the county. And I can tell you the public's going to have a lot of
disagreement over what we think and what you may think is luxury versus what I think. I mean, I've got
running water; it's luxury.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's too bad Hien. The language is all over the place in the
agreement in 2015.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not code. The agreement's just a reference document. It's not code.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So now the challenge is to find away to assure that the reasonable
expectations of the county will be fulfilled, and if we're not mentioning brand names, we're going to have to
find some other way of doing it that satisfies me if my vote matters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your vote's got to be based on the code. So, basically, if it doesn't
satisfy you because of the ambiguous language in the agreement, then I'd be curious to see where in the code
you think it does -- you have an objection based on that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that gets to the Growth Management Plan, and that gets to
Chapter 163 of the state statutes, which is why I wanted to start on the GMP, because I think that expectations
have been established in that agreement that now, for a GMP amendment, gives us wider latitude than,
perhaps, the straight rezone or the PUD changes give us.
And I know that expectations were set by — well, to the County Commissioners because I've spoken
with one who assures me that's the case. And how do we fulfill those expectations now? Are they -- do they
just have to forfeit them? Give them up and say that, well, we're going to have to accept the lowest level of a
retail -- well, Mark --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what the Board does is a different level of review than we do. We
have to review to the Land Development Code and the GMP. If there -- policies in the GMP are ambiguous,
that's what the Land Development Code does. It implements the GMP. The implementation of the GMP
language is what we're trying to do here.
But we can't put -- we can't put statements in that are arbitrary or ambiguous in regards to what the
outcome could be, Ned. It's got to be locked in; otherwise, no one knows what to expect.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I understand that. But I think we're sitting as a -- aren't we sitting
as a planning agency when we look at the GMP part of this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we are.
Page 24 of 85
March 1, 2018
COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. So I think it is fair for us to look at the state statute with
respect to GMP amendments. Even though we are not empowered to accomplish the amendments, we do
male recommendations to the county commissioners.
And so I think we'd use the same criteria and try to identify what the commission's expectation was
when it put together the agreement. And if it looks to us as though those expectations are not being fulfilled
on the planning side, it seems to me that we have a right and a responsibility to speak out.
Now, if mentioning brand names is not how to do it, okay, but there's got to be a better way to do it
that ties this thing down in a tighter manner.
MR. KLATZKOW: The role of the Planning Commission is to review this petition in the context,
first and foremost, of the Growth Management Plan. Does it conform to that? That's what you're doing here.
And then you're looking at, okay, what they're asking for, does it conform to the LDC?
And if the Board of County Commissioners, for example, says, you know what, we want a four-star
hotel or higher here, that's for the Board of County Commissioners, you know, to talk about when it gets to
their level. But at this level, you're here -- does it conform to the GMP, and does it conform to the Land
Development Code?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they're asking for a change to the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And they have -- the changes have to be consistent with the typical
language in the GMP. They can't bring in -- for example, I have fought for years to remove ambiguous
language from our Laid Development Code and GMP. We shouldn't have that kind of language, and it
should be verifiable, quantifiable. And this is going to be the sane thing.
So if you insisted on some vision language that doesn't — that was not definable, Ned, I wouldn't be
able to support it. So somehow we'll have to get there, but I'm not sure where your intentions are, because
I'm not following what you're saying at all. But we'll get there when we get to the GMP.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My intentions are to attempt to fulfill the expectations of the comity in
the view of the Comity Commission two years ago.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The view of the County Commaission from the -- with the ambiguous
language in the agreement cannot all be moved into the Land Development Code and we have to --
MR. KLATZKOW: To be fair --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're here to supportthe Land Development Code.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- this projected out yeas and years and yeas ago with a very different Board
of Comity Commissioners. And David Jackson was the one who really started this process, and David
Jackson left many yeas ago.
And the present bond, frankly, is different from the prior boards who have reviewed this thing, and I
don't know what the present board's, really, vision for this project is. We're going to find out when it gets to
them, ultimately. And trying to sit here and figure out what the vision of the current Board of County
Commissioners is, I don't think it's a very fruitful use of time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. I just want to move on, and we'll start getting
through these documents. We've got to get this to a point we can finish it. So let's move back to the page that
we started with, which was the one with all the Roman numerals.
MR. JOHNSON: Page 4 of 30.
MR. MULHERE: David wants to share something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section.
At the risk of beating a head horse, I'm not going to go into detail. I'm just going to mention that on
these PUD revisions, I'm seeing some discrepancies between the Growth Management Plan amendment
language; language in the PUD referring to medical and general office. And I understand Heidi's cormnent to
change that to "professional," but that still leaves the general office, whereas the FLUE subdistrict language
refers to professional office. So there's a discrepancy there.
There's a few other things. I don't think it's anything major in the sense that I think we can easily
work with the applicant to get the two in sync. But as it stands now there's a disconnect, and it just needs to
be cleaned up.
Page 25 of 85
March 1. 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll get there, David. Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: I just wanted to get that on the record because I knew you were talking about these
things now, and it's some of those points of uses and minimums linked directly to the subdistrict.
CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: I understand. And from your perspective, is the GMP document where we
should have most of the detail, or do you prefer not to have a lot of the detail but basically general policies
and let the implementation be in the Land Development Code?
MR. WEEKS: More towards the latter. What we have to have in the FLUE, Future Land Use
Element, we have to have the uses identified, at least a range of uses. I mean, it doesn't have to be the SIC
code level, but the uses that are allowed and the parameters of intensity, how many square feet, how many
acres, you know, some measure of intensity, and that's just about it. We don't need to have development
standards and a lot of other detail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for all the years I've been on this panel, I know you've tried to keep the
GMP concise and let the Land Development Code implement, and we're going to continue with that.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Bob, could you put the document up we left off on, which was the small Roman numerals, one of the
prior pages.
MR. MULHERE: Do you want to start from the beginning there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I still -- I had turned to the panel and asked if they had any questions
about that first page. Anybody else have any questions about that page?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Heidi.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under Item 1X (sic), is that going to be done through ordinance or
resolution or public hearing? How are you contemplating the majority vote to reduce the units?
MR. MULHERE: What was discussed — excuse me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, Heidi.
What was discussed at our meeting was placed on a regular agenda of the Board of County
Commissioners for their majority review and vote up and down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Heidi, while you're on that one, how can it be majority?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like to respond?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's a change in zoning, so wouldn't it need a supermajority?
MR. KLATZKOW: The idea being that the ability -- the zoning is set in this document, and then
there's sort of like a Chinese menu, you can do this, this, and that; however, if you want to order sort of off
the menu, you can do that. So it's there.
So they're authorized to do it, but in order to do it, you at least need a majority of the Board of
County Commissioners to say, yeah, we approve that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wouldn't be being authorized to go above the maximum at this point
or even below the minimum. They'd have to fall in that range.
And, Jeff, we just got done dealing with a really strange zoning request, and I want to parallel that to
this discussion. It was Calusa Island. A guy come in, and he had the ability to put in 16-, I think -- 1,600
square feet of commercial and four apartments. And it was residential and commercial. He said, look it, I
don't want to do all that. It doesn't blend as well with the community. All I want is to put two houses there.
And he had to come through a PUDA that required a supermajority vote.
So how could we increase or decrease something that's locked into this document and not require a
supermajority vote of the Board?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm okay to lock them in to the minimums and the maximums, and then if they
want to amend the PUD afterwards, they go through the PUDA amendment process. I'm okay with that. We
were just trying to find something that doesn't take a year, year and a half to get done so that if he's in the
middle of construction and says, you know what, I've got a great tenant here, it's for this, you spend a year,
year and a half going through our process, you know, the market's going to change again.
So this was with the idea of flexibility. But I have no issue with making them go through the normal
PUDA requirement.
Page 26 of 85
March 1. 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're already providing them more flexibility than historically I've
ever known, so Ion very content that if they want anything beyond this, it goes back to the regular process we
are used to, and it's a supermajority vote by the Board of County Com issioners. That's more protective,
so -- but that's in --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your -- you're the local planning agency. If that's what your
recommendation to the Board is, that's what it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, okay.
Let's move back up to ii, Bob. That one refers to 875 two-way peak hour trips. By the time of the
application of the SDPA, or SDP -- now, you guys are going to end up, based on what we saw last time,
possibly having a joined accessway in at least two out of your four accesses with the project in front of you.
If that happens, your SDP's probably going to have to show higher trip counts than what just your project
contributes to.
Will that trip up the sentence in ii? Because your SDP will actually show potentially more than 875,
because 875's only for your project. That's not for the Trio project.
MR. MULHERE: Well, Mr. Strain, if you think to clarify that exclude that traffic, but our intent for
any SDP that I know of, you simply provide the project -- let me ask a question. Is there concurrence that a
joint access is better than two separate accesses in that location?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I would think so.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So as a base -- did you want to speak to this issue?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah.
Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock, a professional engineer and certified
planner.
It's common practice when we have projects joint accesses in what we call the operational analysis,
we'll include those adjacent projects. But that doesn't go against the trip cap for the project that we're working
on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't suggesting that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was suggesting that when you submit your SDP, if you show more than
875 because of Trio, is that going to cause you guys a processing problem with the county? That's all I was
trying to find out.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it wouldn't, because we wouldn't show that. We wouldn't show the Trio's
trips as part of the --
Multiple speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do we monitor them?
MR. TREBILCOCK: --trip generation.
Well, we're not -- we're not showing -- what we're showing is, when we do an operational analysis,
we'll show the adjacent traffic that's going to be coming in and out of the project site, but that's not a part of
the development trip generation because it's not a part of our contained development itself.
But that's something that we -- staff will have us address in Site Development Plans that I work on. I
mean, that's a common practice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- okay. Site Development Plans that we're talking about.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SDP. So at the time of application of SDP, do you intend to show the Trio's
entry traffic into your main entry on this -- let's say, 41. Let's start with that one.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, any --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- reasonable understood projected traffic, yeah, but that's not a part of our
site's trip generation. That's a part of what we call an operational analysis that we will do, and we'll look at
those adjacent hips. But when we look at -- when we do a Traffic Impact Statement, we're looking at the
traffic generated by the site.
So what I'm hying to — I guess maybe I'm not explaining it very well, but the 875 trip cap you're
Page 27 of 85
March 1. 2018
talking about relates to this project
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 realize that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Not adjacent projects at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my concern.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're telling me what my concern is.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got 875 on your project and you're going to submit an SDP that
shows 875 plus the Trio's impacts and they're all going to be on your four entryways when you submit your
SDP, if they exceed 875, I don't want to see you coming hi and hitting a brick wall because it was spelled out
differently in this paragraph.
MR. TREBILCOCK: We wouldn't, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm suggesting.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. No. Thank you. But we wouldn't with staff. They would not -- they
would filter through that portion of the data, I guess. That's -- I'm sorry. That's normal practice to be able to
filter that for staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like your conversion tables?
MR. TREBILCOCK: It's not the same. Thank you.
CHAII2MAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know if this clarifies it, but the way I understand what Noun just said is it
may affect the design of the access because of those additional trips, but it's not part of the evaluation of the
maximum trip cap.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as it's part of the evaluation of that entry because --
MR. MULHERE: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because that entry's going to be the one if it does trigger a decel lane
that's going to be there.
MR. MULHERE: It will be. It is required that we evaluate that as a shared access.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a break till 10:45 -- Terri's probably been typing really
fast -- and we'll come back at 10:45 and resume from this point. Thank you.
A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the break. We need to resume the
meeting.
We left off on still working through the -- we're on Page 4 of the new language that was
sent -- passed out to us.
And, Bob, it was -- I was gettuig into the questions I had remaining. If we go to No. 6, and I'm going
to suggest some cross -out language.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you say a minimum and cross out "of any combination," and say "a
minimum of 67,000 square feet of," and then refer to "the No. 2 category above shall be developed."
MR. MULHERE: That gives us more flexibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that way you're not -- well, you've still got to put in the
minimums that you said you would in the vision statement because you stated those as "shalls," but that's
going to have to come back as a stipulation that you'll have to add somewhere in the document.
MR. MULHERE: Just let me make sure 1 understand. You were on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six.
MR. MULHERE: VI. Okay. So minimum of any combination --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying a minimum of 67,000 square feet of the number -- how you
want to refer to No. 2 uses above shall be developed.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. And then we would get rid of 7.
Page 28 of 85
March 1, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you've got to put in the new language that we're going to probably
stipulate concerning combination of including uses such as, and then we'll -- you have to have restaurant.
Those three -- you stated out with three up above.
MR. MULHERE: It's in -- yeah. It's the same language that's in the Comp Plan, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then No. 7, same situation, a maximum 111,000 square feet of allowable
pursuant to No. 2 above may develop through utilization of the land -use conversion. We're going to drop all
that anyway, so you're probably going to have to drop No. 7.
MR. MULHERE: Exactly what I thought. If you're doing --
CHAII2MAN STRAIN: If you take out the conversions, we won't need No. 7.
MR. MULHERE: So it's going to be a minimum and a maximum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the same one with the No. 8 below; by the time we get-- I
think you talked to your client about the land -use conversion matrix on break, and what was the result of that
discussion? And I notice they're not here. Did they get tired and go home for the day?
MR. MULHERE: He said he'd be down shortly. I think as long as we have established, as you
suggested, minimums and maximums, which gives us a range, and we have the other controlling factors
being two, one is a trip cap and the second is a maximum total commercial square footage, which you've
already agreed to, both of those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we haven't agreed to anything yet, but --
MR. MR. MULHERE: No, I mean we have. We have placed them into the document. I didn't mean
collectively. I meant us as applicants.
Yeah, I mean, we can eliminate the conversion matrix.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And along with those standards, we'll talk about the number of
stories, the number of multiple -story buildings, we'll talk about the minimum uses that have to be in that
collective group of buildings, and you've already stated those in the first paragraph. So that all will be pat of
the package that will replace the conversion table, and you and your client are agreeing to replace the
conversion table, take it out.
MR. MULHERE: You know, when we --just, if I may just for one minute. When we went back
and revisited this and we went to 50 percent on the uses, 50 percent minimum, 50 percent above the by -right
to maximum, we won't do that. We'll just have minimums and maximums as Heidi suggested and the trip
cap and the other things we discussed.
I want to look at at least with respect to the minimum on office, some flexibility there. We thought
we might be able to come and change that if there was no market through just a majority vote of the Board,
but I'd like to be able to, between now and the next meeting, maybe look at some flexibility on that office
square footage. Maybe not 30-; maybe something less under some scenario. Maybe it's because we build a
hotel, which I think would be, you know -- or we have, you know, a movie theater that is 40,000 square feet
of retail.
I just want to have a little bit more flexibility before I have to come in and amend a PUD if I don't
have 30,000 square feet of office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking for enough different uses; there might be some way to get
that.
MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm thinking is come up with a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lets keep an open mind, and we'll try to get there.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that sane page, so I can finish up, you already know the majority vote
needs to be supermajority, so I'll go past that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Supermajority, correct?
MR. MULHERE: We don't even need that. Just take that out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just take the whole thing out, because it's just going to be as it is, and that
way we're not changing it.
Number 11, maximum of 150 ALF units may be developed, and we'll change all the rest of it. I
think the 150 ALF units are already noted in the table, so that whole paragraph may be out, but it spawned a
Page 29 of 85
March 1, 2018
question that I had. ALF can be considered either --
MR. JOHNSON: You said 11?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ten.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 11. XI, isn't that 1 I?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Oh. Where'd you come up with that? Okay. We're missing
something else then. Because the version that -- one of the versions you -- one of the many versions you sent
me, the ALF is actually No. 11.
MR. MULHERE: This is -- listen to me. This is the version that I handed out this morning that's on
the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I didn't read it. You handed it out this morning, Bob. The only one I
got a chance to read -- I was — in good conscience, I thought you were going to send me one, so I read that
one.
MR. MULHERE: No, I appreciate it. Trust me, it wasn't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But my question's the same. The 150 ALF, we Look at — those are
allowed on both residential and commercial.
So, Ray, how would we look at how to account a -- where would those fit in under the commercial or
residential component for maximum -- minimum and maximum calculations?
MR. MULHERE: I just can say, we wouldn't expect that to come off of the maximum of 200,000.
We would expect that to come off of the trip cap.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we need to clarify that so we make sure it comes off the
maximum -- no, not the trip cap. It's got to come off of one or the other.
MR. MULHERE: No. I'm saying -- every time you submit an SDP for whatever those uses are, you
have to submit a TIS, which has a trip generation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But if you've got a minimum and maximum square footage for your
retail or office -- commercial, does this affect the minimum or maximum square footage of that, or does it
affect the minimum or maximum square footage or the minimum units/maximum units of the residential?
MR. MULHERE: I mean, if we were going to do that, we'd have to put a conversion factor in there.
No, I mean, the impacts are far -- look, do you -- do you routinely grant a conversion between
independent units and ALF units in this county?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've done it. I don't know if it's routine.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know of any time when you haven't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it's been asked that much, to be honest with you. ALF units --
MR. MULHERE: We put a floor area ratio in there. I guess -- you know, I guess -- let me -- okay.
So let me suggest this, then. I'm sony. I'm not meaning to be argumentative.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Say you come in with a project that's got the maximum retail and you
go the maximum residential and you want an ALF at 150.
MR.MULHERE: I'm assuming that would come off of --we have a box, which you suggested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Let's go back to that box.
MR. MULHERE: And so, you know, if we're going to build 150 ALF, that's some number fewer of
either hotel or residential that we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we come back, figure out a way to identify it so we have it
appropriately boxed in. You've got the same issue with your 68,000 (sic) dealership and your 30,000 —
MR. MULHERE: That would come off the maximum 200,000 for sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Well, then the only other -- then you've just got to pick one
of the ALFs and --
MR. MULHERE: ALF.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll figure out one direction for the ALF, and we'll figure that out.
And then the next page we've already started talking about, and we got hito the issue of the No. 14,
which, for those, it's the xiv. I know we had some discussion on this. I know you've got to rewrite it. For
example, the combined 67,000. Instead of referring to the few uses you did, you should refer just to No. 2 and
Page 30 of 85
March 1, 2018
3 of the principal -use categories above.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the need for No. 3. Number 3 says, you -- basically, on that last
building, you get to go forward with it — these minimum required amounts will be accomplished by the
construction of the building described in the requested building permit, and I'm not sure that's enough to --
MR. MULHERE: So what that would have done --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean CO? You mean what? You can get a building permit and walk
away from it, but it's in the construction building permit.
MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, its implied that -- I guess it's implied if you're going to spend the
money on the permitting to commence construction, you'd finish it but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Soft costs are a drop in the bucket.
MR. STARKEY: No. I think — excuse me. What it says is there are three conditions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it says "or," okay.
MR. STARKEY: Or. So either you've begun construction on a building or buildings that have
already accomplished the minimmns, in which case you get your permit --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. I understand that.
MR. STARKEY: -- or, No. 2, certificates of occupancies have already been issued to accomplish
that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand that, no question.
MR. STARKEY: -- or the minimum amounts would be accomplished by the construction of the last
building that you're applying for permits of. In other words, there's only three conditions you get the permit.
One is that it's under construction. You've already met your minimums because you don't want to wait until
you get a CO to start your last phase, right? The second is you do have your COs, so why wouldn't you grant
the permit? And the third is, I'm below my minimums on some of my uses, but this last permit makes me
exceed -- meet or exceed all of my minimums.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'd just add a couple small words. In the last line it would be "last
building as described in the requested building permit." I understand now that you've clarified it. Thank you.
MR. STARKEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, that's the remainder through the pages you've been through.
Everybody else has asked theirs, so let's move on to the next section.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSON: On the preceding page that we looked at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: We talked about 6 and 7, okay; 6 and 7. My notes reflect that we're striking out
37,000 square feet and replacing it with 67,000 square feet. But, Mr. Chair, you had mentioned something
about 2 above, and I just wanted to get some clarification on what "2 above" was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 2 above would be the principal -uses category. If you go back all the
way up to Page 2 and look at No. 2, that's the 2, and No. 3 is the 3 I was referring to. It's got to be further
articulated. You're going to have to say Section A.I. --
MR. JOHNSON: B.2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- B.2 and 3, or whatever is necessary. But I was just using it as a quick
reference on how to get there.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those two paragraphs, Eric, may not even remain based on the
elimination of the conversion table, which I know you spent a lot of time on, and I know Heidi spent a
tremendous amount of time on it. So I'm glad it's going away, because you spent an awful lot of time, and we
still couldn't figure it out. So thank you for the applicant for agreeing to that.
Okay. Let's go on to the next one.
MR. KLATZKOW: I still don't understand No. 3, and I apologize. I'm just looking for clarity here.
And so they haven't met their minimum requirements. This goes back to A. And now they say, okay, we'll
Page 31 of 85
March 1, 2018
construct another building. Okay, so we're constructing another building. And let's say they needed
commercial for argument's sake, and a new building goes up and nothing but residential goes in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what happened is they would have to have the remainder of the
minimum requirements in that last building, or they wouldn't get a permit for it. That's what it says.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But the use is going to come after the building is built.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You've got to build the building specific for the use. You can't build a
residential building that's going to function as, necessarily, a hotel or vice versa. First of all, they're all going
to be separately metered, and you've got all kinds of issues like that.
MR. STARKEY: Sure. But not only that; we'll submit a building permit. The building permit will
have, if there -- first of all, lets just assume it's a 15 -story building. Let's assume it has 100 -- 300 parking
spaces in the garage. Its going to have some ground floor retail tbafs going to say "retail." We're going to
pay impact fees for retail use. Then lets say we move up and have 10,000 foot of office because we need that
to accomplish our minimum. That's going to be laid out in the building permit and the plans that our architect
charged, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars for, and it's going to say "office," and it's going to have
conference rooms and all that. We're going to pay impact fees for that.
And then lets say above that it's, you know, I don't know, 110 -unit hotel, and so that's going to say
hotel," and its going to be designed with hotel rooms and all the things that you need for a hotel.
So at that point, you look at the building permit and the plans that were submitted, and you say, yes,
this meets the minimums because it wasn't met on the other two buildings, and now you grant the building
permit and we build it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What happens if you only build two buildings? Then you don't even build
anything in the third.
MR. STARKEY: If we build only two buildings, we'll be like all those other developments you
talked about where the owner of the property is really focused on making money and trying to build the last
phase but something in the market has changed, and so maybe we come back to the Board and say, you
know, we want to get rid of -- lower one of the minimums or maybe we just say, hey, we have to wait a year
until the market turns around. You know, the plane crashed into the building in, you know, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
and we have to wait for a while.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's look at it this way. If this turned out to be much simpler than it is
today and they had taken their purchase agreement and they said, we're going to build exactly what's on this
plan, here are the standards to build it, and we'll walk away, we wouldn't have required everything to be in the
first two buildings because something has to be the last building. We wouldn't have had the minimums and
maximums to worry about.
So I think getting some language that tells us that by the time they use that third item they better have
the minimums or they're going to face supermajority vote by the board to change it; I think that's a pretty
good threshold to hold on, because by that time, the land in that third building, if you've done well, should be
higher in value and it becomes -- that becomes part of the issue.
MR. MULIiERE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know. We wouldn't control that if they had come in trying to
mimic exactly what was in that purchase agreement anyway. That's the piece that I'm seeing.
MR. STARKEY: And, ultimately, the market has a significant impact on all development. And so
we all want to build everything now, and sometimes you can't build everything now. Sometimes it takes a
little longer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that, there is one item I'd like to mention, and it's the last
item. And its different numbers on my document. But xiv, which is 14, no individual commercial use may
be located in a building less than two stories. I thought the minimum building height was going to be five
stories.
MR. MULHERE: No. We always --just as we did in the --
Page 32 of 85
March 1, 2018
MR. STARKEY: We actually -- excuse me. We actually never bad a minimum building height.
And as the discussion following last meeting where we were trying to develop that language that assures, you
know, we don't have a big box, you know, the thought was, oh, you build a, you know, a 50,000 -square -foot
K -Mart. Well, you know -- so we said, look, it will be multistory building if it's a single -use building because
you've got to have parking, you know. And so the goal is to -- you know, I, frankly, wouldn't agree to a
minimum of four or five because it could be three, you know. But, I mean, it's probably going to be higher
than that.
But you know, again, if you have structured parking, which is very efficient use of property, its
going to be higher. If you use surface parking, you know, you can only park —you know, you can only park
about 100 cars -- about 75 cars on an acre, you know. So it's not a very efficient use of the land to use it as a
parking lot. This is not a parking -lot project. This is a structured -parking project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I --
MR. STARKEY: You know. on our --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we'll have some -- in wrap-up, we'll probably have a little further
discussion about two stories versus a little bit more.
MR. STARKEY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of that -- Target's do two-story buildings. We're not expecting a Target
at this location.
MR. STARKEY: Right. We couldn't park it anyway, but we wouldn't want it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: And I think there is a possibility of one building being, of the three that we intend
to build, being lower than the other two. That's a possibility, so...
CHAIItMAN STRAIN: I know.
Okay. Let's move on to where we're going to go next.
MR. MULHERE: If you'd like, I can go through the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, the crux of this issue here is going to be the height of the
building, because this is what this whole page is about and if they —
MR. MULHERE: Well, there was a couple other little changes. One you requested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which we did from last time, yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Planning Commission wouldn't mind, the Naples Airport Authority is
here. And since this is the issue most sensitive to them, Bob, do we mind interrupting your presentation to
get their input at this one?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chris, if you want to come up, identify yourself for the record. I know you
sent an -- yeah, either mike is fine.
MR. ROZANSKY: Good morning. Thank you. Chris Rozansky, executive director for the Naples
Airport Authority.
Just to give a little context we have been working with the developer. About a year ago he visited
with our board. Our board had adopted a set of conditions under which we wouldn't object to the project.
And, more recently, we hadn't been engaged in the discussion, but some of the -- the letter that I sent
did have two primary issues. To this point, on the height my understanding is that like your discussion
about conversion tables, nothing in the building of the height -- the height of the building, as we have -- as my
board has reviewed it, is changing.
I understand it to be 160 feet above the established elevation of the airport, and Mr. Starkey and I
discussed that yesterday, and that is perfectly acceptable under the conditions that the board had
previously -- my board had previously set forth.
To give a little context, knowing the nature and the scope of what this -- being a catalyst project.
We're notjust concerned about this project. We're concerned about all the future projects to the east and
south that will follow in the years ahead. So some of our comments today are reflective both of this project
and all of those future projects.
Page 33 of 85
March 1, 2018
The first issue in the letter deals with the Land Development Code in the language Section 4.02.06, if
I'm recalling it correctly, and an exemption. And as I understand, staff perhaps crafted it that way because
maybe that's what you're required to do. Forgive me, I'm not a land planner. And there is exemption for a
prior development near the Marco airport.
What our concern is is the broad nature of the exemption. Under that section there are nine or 10
different height criterias that are provided for in the Land Development Code, and it's our opinion that
providing a broad exception — exemption from all of them is not good public policy.
Our understanding -- and I believe the developer, the applicant, agrees with this, that it's limited to
that 150 -foot threshold, what we refer to as the horizontal surface where our board has said they'll not object
to a height of 160 feet under a certain set of conditions.
It's our belief that not just this project but any other project in the future in this area should be subject
to all of the other height restrictions. And it has been reviewed by the FAA, so it might be more procedural
than anything else.
Also in that section of the code, there are references to nuisances due to glare or smoke or eventual
vegetation of-- growth of vegetation, other things that protect the approaches to the runways and the use of
the airspace or the benefit of the public using the airport and the protection of persons and property on the
ground.
So we would like to see a more specific exemption. We had discussed -- and, again, I'm not a
planner -- a deviation versus an exemption. I do not profess to be the expert in how best to craft that. We're
happy to continue to work with the developer and county staff to come up with what might be beneficial to
all concerned there.
The other portion of my letter deals specifically -- and do you -all have copies? I did bring hard
copies. Would anyone else like a hard copy?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the electronic one you sent out this morning. Or I think you sent it
out last night, but I got it a little before six.
MR. ROZANSKY: I apologize for that. I did bring hard copies.
The other portion of our letter deals with the conditions, developer's conditions of the PUD.
Basically, in the letter we took nearly verbatim the conditions that were set forth by my board, and we request
that those be inserted into those developer conditions. Thank you.
I understand there might be one or two, perhaps, dealing with the cell tower, and there's a bit of a
subjective question regarding noise -- construction materials about noise attenuation, and this project is not
within what your LDC defines as the noise zone. But I can tell you that we have flight tracks that shows
aircraft as low as 400 feet above the ground over -- nearby the project's site.
And so some of the conditions set forth here, we believe, do protect both developer, the airport, and
the public for continued beneficial use of the airport for years to come.
And so we would request that those conditions be added to the PUD, and one or two of them might
require a little bit further discussion, and we appreciate the opportunity to speak before you this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to discuss them right now so we get it all done, and we
can keep moving on.
MR. ROZANSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, from your perspective and your clients, do you have objections to any
numbers -- any of the issues from 1 to 8?
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to let Jerry handle that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that's the only ones we need to focus on. If you're in agreement on
others, we're fine. I have a problem with No. 6, but we'll talk about that.
MR. STARKEY: Number 2, in our discussions previously, this is worded as the developer will file a
recorded avigation easement, height restriction, and/or covenants acceptable to the NAA if we go to the 160
feet. If we agree to stay under -- 150 or under, we don't have to do any of those.
As I've stated to the Board and to Chris, respectfully, we would argue to placing a covenant on the
height. We would not agree to an avigation easement, which we think is overreaching. It takes away
property rights, and I don't think anyone in this room or anyone on the airport board or any other board in the
Page 34 of 85
March 1, 2018
public, if they read the easement, would want that over their home. And it completely takes away the
property owner's right to address issues that interfere with the airspace above.
The FAA regulates the safe operation of aircraft in the air. The Naples Airport Authority has rules
and regulations and, you know, future unknown aircraft activity, including drones and others, are specifically
waived by this avigation easement. I mean, it's a very thick document. It's not appropriate. It would affect
the value. It would affect the ability to obtain title insurance and mortgage -- you know, mortgage financing
and, more importantly, and just, basically, it's a fundamental breach of property rights.
So I would object to that but would agree, as I've stated, to filing the height restriction. That's
something we will agree to.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan.
MR. STARKEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said 160 feet above the elevation of the airport.
MR. ROZANSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the elevation of the airport?
MR. ROZANSKY Eight feet.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eight point zero NAVD, NGVD?
MR. STARKEY: Yes. That's consistent— we both agree with that.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eight point zero NAVD.
MR. STARKEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not NGVD? Because there's 1.3 feet in the difference.
MR. STARKEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I hate to pick fly crap out of --
MR. STARKEY: Yes. We've worked feverishly since the last meeting to make sure all of the
measurements are on a NAVD basis.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: NAVD.
MR. STARKEY: And that's what's reflected on our height.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So we've got 168 NAVD is the elevation of the absolute top
of the building.
MR. STARKEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
MR. STARKEY: Okay. And so if I were to continue through this list the -- so No. 2 mentions that
we'll make -- file a public restriction of record. It says, you know, A, B, or C; three options, and/or. We are
agreeing with the height restriction. We would object to the avigation easement which would also then fall
into No. 3. So we would file the height restriction.
We are happy to notify the -- any condominium that we build, place it in the document of public
record, disclose it as required by the airport and Florida law. It's also a lengthy disclosure, but its fine with
us. You know, the airport's there. We're happy to put it in the documents and track the language you
provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry, to expedite this, what ones do you disagree with? Just 2 and 3?
MR. STARKEY: The sound attenuation is one that we had stated in our discussion
previously -- originally and, again, this morning. We'll put sound attenuation materials in as required by our
architect.
I mean, we're outside of the noise zone. We think the noise on Highway 41 and Davis is more of an
issue than airport noise. So we're not in the airport zone noise cone. We'll address the noise, but it will be to
the standards that -- you know, that our studies indicate are appropriate. We want to protect our value, too.
Let's see, No. 7. Of course, No. 7, we have the FAA determination of no hazard. We intend to
follow that for sure and, No. 8, the cranes as well, and then I think this No. 6 is an issue that staff may have an
issue with, but, you know, it relates to the towers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your comments about avigation easements I disagree with. I don't
think they're an infringement on property rights. They do exist in Collier County. They do not cause
Page 35 of 85
March 1, 2018
problems on titles and elsewhere in Collier County. I'm not sure why you think they would for you. They
came about because of people moving in next to airports and complaining afterwards about the noise. Now if
they move in, they get a notice they have an avigation easement, and the noise is not an issue anymore, and
the lawsuits stop. I saw them as an assistance, not a problem.
You're looking at it from a different angle. Pm not sure why you think they're a problem.
MR. STARKEY: Well, you know, the beauty about America is we all have our view of property
rights and, respectfully, I think that avigation easement is overreaching. I think there are provisions in there
that you wouldn't want, and I don't know that this is the foram. I think it would be better for us to continue to
discuss with the airport.
But my understanding is that if we follow the height amendment, I mean, the height limitation, that
would satisfy No. 2.
MR. ROZANSKY: The NAA -- although an avigation easement is ideal, we have had this
conversation, and the restrictive height covenant would be acceptable as long as the disclosure was also
included in those condominium documents.
MR. STARKEY: Yes, which we agree to. I think that's appropriate, and we agree to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point we're probably going to need a refined letter from your
department or from your -- from the airport after you and the applicant work out your differences and get
down to what your objections are at that point if there are still any.
For example, in No. 2 they talk about the 150 feet, which I thought meant that if you're below 150
feet, you didn't care about an avigation easement. If you're above 150 feet, that's when they wanted it. You
just said you're going to be below 150 feet?
MR. STARKEY: No, no. I said -- the point I made was if you're 150 feet or below, you don't need
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. STARKEY: Going up 10 feet seems punitive. I mean, I have an aversion to avigation
easements. And, again, I don't think this is the right place to address that but, nevertheless, the 10 -foot
differential doesn't -- I can't see a rational basis that if you go 10 more feet, you've got to have an avigation
easement versus — 150 versus 140.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and, go ahead, Heidi.
MR. STARKEY: But it's somewhat irrelevant because we've agreed we'll notify in the condo
documents, and we'll place the height restriction. So the avigation easement, in our prior conversations
and -- as this morning and as Chris just mentioned, you know, it's not an issue. We agree on two of the items
that would accomplish the goal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just want to clarify. The restrictive covenant, if that's the route you go,
would be in favor of the Naples Airport Authority, correct?
MR. STARKEY: Well, a restrictive covenant on height would be --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In favor of the airport authority?
MR. STARKEY: Well, the restrictive covenant restricts the property, and so it's in favor of the
world.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know, but do you want to have the ability to release it if it is released by
the Naples Airport Authority as opposed to a restrictive covenant that's in favor of all the property owners in
the development? That's all I'm trying to get at. And I also need a time frame by which the restrictive
covenant would be recorded, you know --
MR. ROZANSKY: So our -- pardon me. Haven't worked through the details with assistance of our
legal counsel of that yet and Jerry's team as well.
Our ideal for the airport authority would -- after closing but before any mortgages would be recorded
is -- against the property is when we would like to see the covenant recorded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, between —
MR. STARKEY: I don't have any objection. We're going to have a zoning restriction. We have
plenty of restrictions at 168. We'll put it -- as we have agree, we'll do that.
Page 36 of 85
March 1. 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than spend a lot of time at this meeting trying to work out your
differences, it seems like you've found a way to agree on quite a few of them. We can expect a revised
position from you before the next meeting?
MR. ROZANSKY: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under No. 6, just so you know, that's an issue involving our Land
Development Code. That doesn't need to be in --separately stated. So we already provide communication
tower review, and it's certainly for safe and efficient use of the airspace. So I don't see compounding that
with a problem by adding No. 6 into this particular PUD.
MR. ROZANSKY: We're not here to make the process more complex. We're here to protect the
public and airport operations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can assure you no matter what you did today, you couldn't make it more
complex.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's our job.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're already there. Yeah, that's our job.
Okay. Anybody else want to comment on the airport stuff before we move on?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned and then Diane, and then Joe. I'm sorry, Joe.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question relates to -- or is in satisfaction of some questions that
have been asked of me by neighborhood people in the City of Naples. And this has to do with whether there
is any need, present or expected in the future, for the airport to reroute landings and takeoffs more over
toward the City of Naples as a result of what is happening with this project.
MR. ROZANSKY: This project will not affect the direction of takeoffs or landings.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: You don't have any plans to alter those -- the takeoffs and landings as a
result of this project?
MR. ROZANSKY: No. But as I mentioned, there will be frequent overflight of small aircraft -- and
maybe I didn't mention small aircraft. There's a traffic pattern that surrounds each runway. The traffic
pattern actually intersects the area of the triangle regardless of which runway is in use. So there will be
overflight predominantly by small aircraft, and then the jet aircraft are more in line with the alignment of the
runway.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me ask my question a little better. Is there going to be any increase
in noise from the airport to the areas of Olde Naples as a result of the mini -triangle project?
MR. ROZANSKY: I'm not sure I understand the question.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are there any plans in place or is there any likelihood that there would
be a plan put in place by the airport in order for, let's say, safety reasons or out of concern that there's a
160 -foot building there; therefore, we need to move more takeoffs and landings over another part of the area.
MR. ROZANSKY: No. As I mentioned initially, the project would not -- it's been reviewed by
FAA. We see no reason why there would be a change in traffic patterns as a result of this project.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All right. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, then Joe.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let Diane go. She was next. Then Joe, then Stan.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Chris, could the FAA, at this 168 feet, come in and make them put a
rotating beacon on the top?
MR. ROZANSKY: The airspace determinations said that they have to comply with a federal
advisory circular for marketing lighting of the building. I haven't reviewed that today to determine what that
might entail.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because I know at 200 feet you must have a rotating beacon on towers
and stuff. I was just wondering, could the FAA -- not you, but could the FAA come in and have them put
something on the top of their building?
MR. ROZANSKY: They've already opined on that matter, and that was in the determination that
was received back in January 2017.
Page 37 of 85
March 1, 2018
MR. STARKEY: No impact to airport operations at all. The tower that -- the communication tower
that is on site doesn't have a beacon, and it's higher than the buildings that we're going to build.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR STARKEY: I don't think any of us can predict future FAA --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to build consistent with FAA rules, right?
MR. STARKEY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There. That's it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, yeah. You're going to do that except you made a comment just
before he came up that you might not build Building 3 because an airplane hit Tower 2, and Pm going, wait a
minute.
MR. STARKEY: I said that?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, you did.
MR. MULHERE: You used a bad example.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe?
MR. STARKEY: Oh, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I was using an example of why the economy went south.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to follow up. Was there a disagreement to No. 4? 1 lost
track of that when they were discussing. The disclosures should be in the documents, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they agreed to that.
MR. STARKEY: We agree.
MR. ROZANSKY: I don't think there's a disagreement. Mr. Starkey was even gracious enough to,
you know, take in the language we've seen used in other projects around the community, both in the city and
the county, and I think they said they would, you know, use similar language if not the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pm not a pilot, but it seems to me like when you're coming
in for a landing or doing a takeoff, you line yourself up with the runway. You don't kind of turn out real
quick or come in at the last minute and turn in real quick unless you're with the Air Force or something. How
far away do you have to start lining up on the runway?
MR. ROZANSKY: Woo. That varies dramatically by the type aircraft, the performance of the
aircraft, the pilot, the weather conditions.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: A big, heavy -- the biggest one you've got that comes in.
MR. ROZANSKY: They generally will set up seven or so miles out from the end of the runway
aligned with the runway. So that's going to put them out over the Gulf of Mexico if they're approaching from
the southwest. And you might have seen aircraft approaching, you know, if you're out at the pier, something
like that.
COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Yeah.
MR. ROZANSKY: Small aircraft don't need near that kind of — to be out that far, and they do tum
within a half mile of the end of the runway. They do make tight 90 -degree turns in a rectangular pattern
around the end of the runway, and that's what we call the traffic pattern, and that's where the small aircraft
will be over the site.
COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll look forward to hearing from you before the next
hearing.
MR. ROZANSKY: If I could just go back to the first point, Mr. Chair, about the section of the Land
Development Code. We're happy to work with the staff and the developer in coming up with very narrow
language that's mutually agreeable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, honestly, no one had objected to that at the first meeting, so I figure if
no one was too concerned about it, we're fine.
I understand your concern. When I saw it I thought, well, why didn't they do a deviation but figured
if they wanted to do an LDC amendment and if it was tailored sharp enough, it would be fine. But I will now
have that question of them. So we'll see if there's still going to be an LDC amendment or possibly a
deviation.
Page 38 of 85
March 1, 2018
MR. ROZANSKY: And, again, I'm not here to opine on the technical approach. Just when you have
a broad exemption from all of that section when there's nine or 10 different surfaces, I don't believe that that's
a matter of good policy. It probably wasn't anybody's intention. I don't believe it was. It's just how it came
about. We deal with these things on a somewhat frequent basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's only someone with your expertise that would notice that, so we
appreciate it.
MR. ROZANSKY: Thank you for hearing me today.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, may I -- I mean, we bad a discussion before the meeting and,
yeah, we thought we were limiting it to only the height exemption. But Chris pointed out that there are other
types of heights in there. And I think what we can do is tighten it up to refer specifically to the horizontal
surface height limitation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why didn't you do a deviation?
MR. MULHERE: Well, because -- the reason that we did an LDC amendment, at some cost to my
client, as opposed to a deviation, which would have cost nothing, was that there was already one precedent
set here, number one, and, number two, it allowed for people who may be looking through the code to
understand that there is an exemption in this location, which they may not see unless they went over to the
PUD and looked at that deviation.
So we thought it was more conservative. We were trying to be helpful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to tighten the language up. You're going to get together
with the airport authority before the next hearing, and you're going to straighten out any differences that need
to be addressed; is that correct?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. And while we're at a break for outside speakers, why don't we
just go right into any public speakers, and if we have time left before lunch, we'll come back to you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chris.
Anybody else here from the public -- first of all, Ray, do we have any registered public speakers?
Eric or Ray, one of you call them; her.
MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Katie Cole. And we have no other registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Katie, your paralegal's not here.
MS. COLE: She's on the ground.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I didn't see her over there. Okay.
MS. COLE: Good morning. Katie Cole with the law fine of Hill, Ward, Henderson, 600 Cleveland
Street, Suite 800, Clearwater, Florida, representing Crown Castle International, the owner of the wireless
communication tower on this site.
And I appreciate the receipt of the language yesterday and, pursuant to Ms. Ashton's suggestion, we
concur with that. We would appreciate if it was modified further to state that it's an interim permitted use
instead of legally conforming, as permitted use is a defined tern in the code.
Additionally, we have in our records that the address of the site is 2054. I think the numbers were
just transposed in the draft.
So those were our two comments. I also did check on our registration, and this tower is not over 185
feet, so the inspection reports hadn't -- were not formally submitted to the county, although they have been
provided annually to the CRA as part of this discussion, so...
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The CRA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull your mike down, Stan, if you could. Thank you.
MS. COLE: Just out of -- for information sake to the CRA as part of this discussion, because the
code requires, if the tower is over 185 feet, to provide those inspection reports, and this tower's 182 feet. But
I do have them with me if you would like them.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pm not going to go with the NAVD/NGVD.
MS. COLE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Ms. Cole?
Page 39 of 85
March 1, 2018
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Katie. Appreciate it.
MS. COLE: And I think we did speak to the applicant, and they had indicated previously they were
okay with Ms. Ashton's suggested modification to incorporate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, they did.
MS. COLE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Is there any other member of the public here that would like to be heard at this time?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, we'll move back to your presentation. And we left off on the --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Before we leave the airport letter, I just want to be sure I understood.
The airport raised two concerns; first of all with respect to LDC 4.02.06 and second with regard to the
language that would be contained in the ordinance.
We spent a lot of time talking about that second point. Am I correct that you are in agreement that
the only exemption you need are from Parts E, F, and G and that you're willing to remain subject to the rest of
that ordinance?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to work that out with the airport authority
between now and the time you come back; is that right?
MR. MULHERE: We are in agreement. Yes, we will do that and we are in agreement that the only
exemption that we need is from -- is to allow for a building that's 10 feet taller than the maximum allowable
height of 150 feet. We'll get there. Where is Chris? We'll get there.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But do you still have something to work out on E, F, and G being the
only parts of that ordinance that you seek exemption from?
MR. MULHERE: Probably not but I don't have the ordinance in front of me, so I just, you know --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're okay with it. Bring it back with the summary of this whole project
after staff has time to receive and review it, and everything will match up at that time. I think that's the
direction we gave, and I think we'll get there if we stick to it.
Anything else?
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob? We're back to that table that we had left off on. Anybody
have any other questions from that table?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is this on Exhibit B?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Exhibit B, first page.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I remain concerned about the 500 -square -feet dwelling units. It doesn't
match up with the language in the 2015 document as near as I can tell. And I don't see — who do you
anticipate wanting to be in that 20 percent, 500 square feet because --
MR. STARKEY: Some people that are just like you and me. You know, there are units in
downtown Naples, Olde Naples on Broad Street near Third Street and other examples near Fifth Avenue
where the buildings were built in the 1960s and 1970s and those units have between 500 and 700 square feet.
They actually go for a pretty significant price per square foot.
If they haven't been remodeled, they tend to be selling at $600 per foot and if they have been
remodeled with new floors, new kitchens, new bathroom appliances or typically one
bathroom -- one -bathroom, one -bedroom units, you know, they sell for 650 to $750 a square foot.
And so these are people that are affluent, second homeowners. They're from the Midwest. They're
from Canada. They're from the Northeast. They come down to Naples, like many other people in Naples, and
they choose to spend, you know, 400- or $600,000 to be by the beach and downtown instead of, you know, a
Page 40 of 85
March 1, 2018
2 million or $3 million or 6 million or $10 million home in downtown Naples.
So in providing -- you know, we recognize that we're an urban enviromnent. We recognize that we
are want -- we will appeal to the people that want to be close to downtown and close to the beach but for
whatever reason don't want to buy a million -and -a -half dollar condo. And so we think that there's a market
because we continually watch the people buy and remodel and live and enjoy these 500- to 700 -square -foot
units.
And so we don't intend to build many of them. We'd like to have up to 20 percent. And so if you had
200 units, that would be 40 units that might be between 699 and 500, and 180 (sic) units that areitt. And so,
you know, at the end of the day when we design a specific building, there may not be any 500 -square -foot
units. But there is a market for that.
And if -- to the extent you have a -- let's say you have 10 stories above a parking garage in a
residential building and if you put a 500 -square -foot unit or 550 -square -foot unit next to a 700 -square -foot
unit, you can have 10 of the 500s and 10 of the 699s, so it's under, you know. And as you're going through
your marketing process, if there's more of a demand for a -- I'm not good at math -- 1,200 -square -foot unit,
you can combine those units.
So that's some of the logistics, you know, that you go through as a developer and understanding the
market. There will also be people that will be, you know, perfectly fine with a 1,400 -square -foot or a 16- or
an 1,800 -square -foot building -- unit. But that's why. There's a strong market for it. And, you know, we
think that a small percentage of our residential component would be under 700 square feet. I don't know if
it's 10 units or 20 units, but it won't be much more than that because we've put a limit on it. And at the end of
the day, I just want to meet the market.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on the page that's in front of us?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You want to move on to the next one, Bob?
MR. MUL14ERF: I just wanted to point out -- because we didn't specifically discuss it, but, Mr.
Strain, you had suggested that we clarify --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I just wanted to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't discuss it because I saw it.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, okay.
The next page is the PUD master plan. I don't know if you have any questions. I haven't made any
changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question, but I'll defer to the Planning Commission first. Anybody
on the Planning Commission have any questions about this plan?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question involves a note that says general location of shared sign.
Well, in your PUD you're requesting the sign at that location, and I understand it. It's on your PUD, so it's
really not a shared sign for you, but it is for Trio. Are they going to have to do an off-site sign exemption?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why not?
MR. MULHERE: Because the way we worded the deviation -- I'll have to get to the exact language.
If you give me a second, I will. I just want to get to the language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you did a deviation for your property to allow an off-site sign.
MR. MULHERE: It says --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're to request it.
MR. MULHERE: It says clearly in there that the sign can support either of the adjacent property
owners. It can be located on his property and support us or our property and support him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You cant include a benefit or a detriment to his property in your PUD.
MR. MULHERE: It's no detriment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A benefit then, whatever it is. How do you do that in this PUD?
MR. MULHERE: Because he's going to have to agree to it. We're going to have agreement that if
Page 41 of 85
March 1, 2018
we do a shared sign, he's okay with it. This just allows it. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look it, Pm not trying to make it more burdensome, but generally if you
have an off -premises sign you need to go through a sign exemption -- sign process for that.
Ray, are you paying attention to this at all? Did you hear the question? I know you're looking at
something, but it wasn't this, so...
MR. MULHERE: I just want you to know we did meet with staff on this as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff has concurred they don't need an off -premise sign for the Trio
sign to be on this particular project's property?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
And in other instances where a PUD is allowing an off -premises sign for another site, there should be
language in this PUD to allow for the off-site sign, but the property zoned adjacent doesn't need to have
anything special.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where my question was. Thank you.
Okay. Anybody else have any questions about the master plan -- or the plan following that is the --
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. JOHNSON: Could we go back to the master plan for a second?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. JOHNSON: This relates back to one of the conditions of approval related to the buffers. The
master plan shows that you have zero or five feet landscape buffer between the subject property and the
surrounding properties. 1 think if the applicant were to just strike out the zero, then that condition of approval
would go away.
MR. MULHERE: No problem. We already have -- we have a five-foot landscape buffer required
there, so obviously we can't be zero if we have a five-foot landscape buffer.
CI4AIRMAN STRAIN: That's it, Eric?
MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. And that goes for the other side as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just was going to suggest. They've two of them down there, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, one thing I did happen to note, I don't know why there's a
discrepancy. But on another portion of your documents -- and I'll try to find out which one it is. You had
a — in your first submittal you had 57 pages, part of the staff report, and then you went into another section of
pages, which was 303. So 157 pages electronically. Go ahead and figure that out.
You have the amount of dedicated driveways. Your internal ID, your hrtemal drives --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — here you're asking for 1.50 or you're stating they're 1.50. That other page
says .77. Do you know why there's a discrepancy?
MR. MULHERE: I do not. I know that those were calculated. Bary actually did -- Barry, the civil
engineer on the job, actually did the calculation of that acreage. So Pm not sure where the other one might
have come from.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you what document it's in, if that will help.
MR. JOHNSON: Maybe it was from the NIM.
C14AIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. It was in a document. That's why I picked up on it. And I thought,
well, that's interesting. I'm getting there. Here it is. It's in a subject parcel, Exhibit C, master plan, and it's by
your firm, Bob, and it's included after Page 17 of Trebilcock Consulting Solutions P.A.
MR. NIULHERE: Oh, it was an earlier site plan submitted, then we revised this plan that was
submitted with the original TIS, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The roads on that plan are identical in location and shape to the
roads in the plan you have on the plan we're looking at today.
MR. MULHERE: I can tell you that that number's the accurate number, the higher number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we move on.
Page 42 of 85
March 1. 2018
MR. MULHERE: Did you want to go to the next?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Anybody have any questions ftom the next plan? It's an easement
plan? Probably not.
The next one, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: That's our deviations. I know that's small. I can make it bigger. I just didn't
know if there was any questions on it.
MR. JOHNSON: I don't think anything has changed from the last time the Commission has seen this
to today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. I don't think so either. So, okay.
MR. MULHERE: This is the exhibit that we prepared in response to the questions related to various
measures of height. We have an -- we have a Naples Airport Authority height established, we have an FAA
height established and, of course, we have the county's zoned and actual height. Those are reflected in the
PUD document and the table that we previously looked at. This, I think, we put in here because we thought it
would be helpful for any future reviewer because it translates as I think maybe Stan had suggested; all of the
heights are translated to an equivalency in NAVD.
And as you can see on the left-hand side right here, the maximum height that we can — that we can
have is 160 feet above the established Naples Airport Authority which translates to our maximum building
height in our zoned document as well and actual.
So we just -- I mean, I know there's a lot of numbers on here, but they're all converted to NAVD, and
we're in agreement. As you can see, the FAA height from above mean sea level; mean sea level at this site is
an elevation of 2.67 feet. That translates to 170.67 feet NAVD. We're not asking to go that high. We're
within the limits, and the PUD zoning document provides for those limits of the Naples Airport Authority
maximum height allowance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you must have a lot of tiny people going in this building, because your
elevator shaft is only 2.8 feet high.
MR. MULHERE: No. It will probably end up being below that but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your elevator shafts at their 15 or 12, 10 feet cap, they're
going -- you're going to actually not use your zoned height then; is that what you're saying?
MR. MULHERE: We may not use the zoned height to the degree that the elevator shaft, you know,
exceeds that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Doesn't the code allow for certain appurtenances to --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the code does, but we're restricted --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're restricted strictly -- everything is restricted to that FAA
height
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MR. STARKEY: Someone once said on this board -- I don't know who, this Commission — the
tippy top.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tippy top.
MR. STARKEY: Tippy top is 160 above 8 -foot elevation. 168 NAV (sic).
So that line at the top at 168 is the maximum that would encompass any airport -- excuse me -- any
elevator shaft, any mechanical equipment, any FAA --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The 168 will accomplish it? Your actual height's 162.8.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The map -- the drawing they have up there doesn't reflect what they're
building, because they actually need to show their building typical is going to 162.8, which is below the NAA
maximum. Because the —
MR. STARKEY: The 162 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The visual shows it going to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, please.
And, Jerry, when you speak, you need to use the microphone so we get it recorded.
Page 43 of 85
March 1, 2018
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. But the visual you have here shows it going to 168 is the typical
building, which can be confusing for a reviewer, because it's showing it's inconsistent with what's on your
chart.
MR. STARKEY: The zoned height -- excuse me. The zoned height and the actual height are the
exact same point in the sky. By definition, one is measured from the eight -foot elevation, which is one foot
above FEMA, and the other one is measured from the average crown of the road between Davis and
Highway 41. So the only reason that the 160 and the 162.8 vary is that they start at the ground at different
places.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Your drawing of the building goes all the way up to the 168 —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Heidi. Look on the left side of the drawing and see the arrow over
there where the top of the arrow touches the maximum height of 168? Look where it starts. And it's NAVD.
It starts at an elevation 8.0 NAVD.
So if you take NAVD from zero all the way to the top of the building, it's got to be 168. But the
measurement for the airport is starting at 8 to 168, which is why 160 is their cap.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But on their other chart they said they could go to 168 NAVD, but they're
only going to 162.8 is what the other chart said.
MR. MULHERE: No. But that's a measurement. Heidi, that 162.8, you have to look -- wait a
minute. Just listen to me for a minute. The actual height, please, they're measured from different locations.
Look at your own definition of actual height. It's measured from the average center line of the crown of the
road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. It starts from a different starting point, so...
MR. MULHERE: That's why we put it on this example.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put it this way: You're going to be consistent with the airport's height.
At some point you probably should --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. Look, I understand Heidi's confusion because -- and that's on you, by the
way, because if she can't understand it, nobody's going to understand it.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you go to Exhibit B, your residential commercial development standards,
you've got maximum building height not to exceed actual of 162.8 NAVD, and your chart over here that
we've been looking at has it as 168 NAVD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the point at which we start measuring. That's the problem that's causing
the confusion. You may want to add some embellishment to this.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need clarity in this document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just add some more to it by the time you come back in.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes, we will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on -- and, by the way, this height thing will -- whenever
you finish with it will be an exhibit to the PUD so we avoid future confusion.
MR. MULHERE: That's what we did. I'm not sure where we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're right. We're just moving through it. The one prior to that is a
listing of the sheets. There's no issue there. So now you're getting into your various --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. These are the architectural site plan and then architectural and landscape
exhibits. We didn't change any of those.
MR. JOHNSON: No change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're, actually, probably going to have down to Page 25 before we get
into text again.
MR. JOHNSON: So I don't think any of those pages changed, correct?
MR. MULHERE: They didn't. And the legal description didn't change. I'm trying to get to the
picture, Mr. Chair. I'm just trying to get to the right page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. This is your deviation page, basically, so...
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm just trying to get it so that it fits properly on the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
Page 44 of 85
March 1, 2018
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a quick question for you.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You show a lot of people eating outside.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is it -- you have a 5 -foot landscape buffer. So these people --
MR. MULHERE: Not -- the 5 -foot landscape buffer is not in that location, not along the major
arterials where we show those people eating. The 5 -foot landscape buffer is adjacent to the U -Haul and the
other commercial development to the south.
So where we show that outdoor diming would be potentially adjacent to either Davis or 41 where we
don't -- we don't have a 5 -foot landscape buffer. We meet the code provisions. I think it's a minimum 10 -foot
landscape buffer and 20 -foot setback.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'm looking at this CI picture on Page 9, the Davis Boulevard,
and it looks like there are cars going by, and there's people just right on the other side.
MR. MULHERE: Cl, did you say? I'm song.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Cl.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your mike, Bob. It's not picking up. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. So there's the exhibit. And this is exactly what the overlay calls for is a
combination of landscaping and hardened, you know, pedestrian areas. They actually want to bring --let
people use this portion of the landscape buffer and setback. Then, yes, this could be Davis or U.S. 41.
As it turns out, we'll probably be elevated a little bit because of the requirements to elevate, you
know, to come up to the minimum flood elevation, but this generally depicts what could be one option in
some locations. We could have outdoor dining.
COMNIISSIONER EBERT: Well, you show tables there and stuff. So I'm assuming that it is.
MR. MULHERE: No. I know. I'm not arguing with you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But I'm just trying to figure out --I don't know about dining outside
with all that noise, but...
MR. STARKEY: The overlay allows for an expanded public realm of 20 feet. Instead of the
traditional sidewalk and landscape buffer, you can merge them, and that's something that's a part of the
existing overlay in the mini -triangle.
And so this simply -- we have two exhibits from the top showing how it might be on 41 or Davis.
And so one example is illustrating in the code the public reahn so that the code allows you to do a 20 -foot
hardscape where you might have some chairs. It's not a restaurant operation coming out there. Think of it as
a public walkway that has benches and art, maybe some tables. That's allowed.
So in one of our examples we showed that. In the other example we showed the more traditional
buffer landscape sidewalk. And so the code allows either, and we were just trying to show examples of
both --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. STARKEY: -- for it. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, I guess we're back on the deviation page now.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Okay. There we go.
So this actually may be a better document. This may be a better document to refer to, because it will
be a little easier to read.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely.
MR, MULHERE: So that's the list of deviations starting with the architectural standards. And, you
know, just let me know if you have any questions, and I'll move through them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the first page of deviations? It's all through Page 25.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: We've seen all this before?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Well, last meeting, yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some other questions may have come up.
Bob, in your -- the only one I happen to have is No. 5, your landscape standards.
Page 45 of 85
March 1, 2018
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last sentence, royal palm trees shall be 25 feet in height on average at the
time of planting. We need a minimum. I mean, on average, you could have one foot high and then you could
have 26 feet high or whatever you need to get to an average. So just give us some minimum heights.
MR. MULHERE: I'll talk to Mark— yes. I'll talk to Mark. I mean, he gave us that language, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, did he? Okay. Well, he should be able to have a fixfor it.
MR. MULHERE: I did want to point out this is the second page of deviations, which includes the
sign deviation. And we did have one additional — I guess that's it. We didn't. Oh, its in -- Pm sorry. There
was one addition, but it's in the development commitments. So nothing changed here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions remaining with the deviations section?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your parking, No. 6, and it actually goes to Page 25 bottom, 26 top.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking for a change in the parking mix to --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the cinema.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Let me put that up there where somebody can see it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your point is you're trying to get a required space for each three seats,
which is different than the gross area, the 40 -square -foot seating, because mostly I would expect the common
areas. Are you expecting in these kind of cinemas doing anything that would change the abilities of the -- are
the common areas any different than what we see in a typical, like, Silver Spot or something like that?
MR. MULHERE: Well, no. They're not any different than Silver Spot. That's one example.
MS. SPARKEY: The Silver Spot phenomenon has really developed since the code addresses
cinemas and so, historically, they would provide about 40 square foot per seat, seat and common area Now
the trend is towards 65 to 70 feet.
So when you go to a traditional theater and you sit, you know, in the small chair and the gum wider
the chair and all that, or you go to a Silver Spot or one like it, and they have the wider recliners that are
further set back from the person in front of you. So what that relates to is they have fewer seats per square
foot than in the traditional days of when theaters -- this code was written for.
And so the exemption we're asking for is one per three, and then one parking space for the maximum
employee covert at the peak shift, which is about 50. So if we had a 600 -seat theater, which is kind of the area
we're talking about — and that would be anywhere -- one theater would put that in, you know, six screens, one
would put it in eight -- you know, eight screens.
But at the end of the day a 600 -screen (sic) theater would require 200 parking spaces for the theater
and activities and then 50 spaces for the employees. And so that's why we put that in.
The other -- the existing code over -parks for today's theater. You know, the adult -style theater, the
active adult boutique theater. It's hard to say "adult theater" with a straight face, right? You know what I
mean, leather seats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That answers my question. Thank you.
Anybody else?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I think we got through the deviations, and now we're at the list of
developer commitments.
I didn't know -- we didn't really have much discussion on these the first time around, so I did not -- I
think we talked about the transit stop a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under number -- yeah, go ahead. Ion sorry.
MR. MULHERE: I just didn't know if there were any questions. I'll follow your lead, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the developer commitments for the two
pages that are offered?
Page 46 of 85
March 1, 2018
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question I have, and it has to do with No. 4, there was a statute
change last year or the year before that requires basically a rational nexus for an exactment. You're not
allowed to have illegal exachnents. What was the basis for Emergency Management — other than everybody's
scared about a hurricane, which isn't really a good basis -- where they require a 45 KW towable diesel giant
running -- quiet running multi -face, multi -voltage generator to be used at other hurricane evacuation shelter
seats as a one-time hurricane mitigation effort.
I just want to make sure the justifications are understood for that, because what you require of one
project we should be looking at for all.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think that's a good question, and maybe it is a little bit subjective. The
reason I say that is, what we do — what I've done with all of my clients who are developing within the coastal
high hazard area or otherwise may have an impact on evacuation is to go and meet with the Emergency
Management director, Dan Summers, and ask him to take a look at the project and tell us what you think
would be most beneficial to address that issue, and this is what he came up with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the old -- old days, because I was part of those periods of time,
everybody had to get a kind of sign -off from Emergency Management and address the hurricane issues as a
result of mostly DRIB and things like that. There actually was a question there; what did you do to mitigate
hurricane. So they go to — not Dan at the time, but whoever was here.
MR. MULHERE: Ken Pino (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Could we do some improvements somewhere nearby in a shelter to
meet that requirement of the DRI. And so you'd get new shutters on a school and things like that. Well, that
was done kind of loosely for DRIB mostly, and I can't figure out how we're now applying it on a -- if we can,
I'm glad of it, but I just want to make sure we're on solid ground in requiring it of a project like this.
MR. BOSL Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And, unfortunately, Dan Summers was not
available. But within the coastal -- or coastal conservation and management element of the Growth
Management Plan, hurricane evacuation is one of the components in the areas where you have objectives and
policies, and within the properties that are within the Coastal High Hazard Area where you actually have
additional provisions that require, in terms of AFLs, in terns of generators on site.
But we also have provisions that relate to evacuation and sheltering. And based upon those
provisions and objectives, we believe we're justified within this request because of where it sits within the
Coastal High Hazard Area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can be assured, then, that all the projects coming forward in the
Coastal High Hazard Area will have some kind of contribution requirement to emergency management to be
fair to everybody.
MR. BOSI: We can most certainly be assured that there will be a review by Emergency
Management as to what would be an appropriate mitigation for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we -- I mean, we've just got to treat everybody the same.
And if we're going to start that as a policy, I'm fine with it. I'm glad we are. I'm assuming then we have the
rational nexus that can be done and, if that's the case, then great, we know that from now on when these
projects come forward, you guys will have something in here after having talked to Dan.
MR, BOSI: Vincentian PUD was another example of a project where we have provided for the same
type of review by Emergency Management, and they made the same similar type of request. And, you're
right, equal protection is something that we thrive for within each of our petitions in terms of how we treat an
individual applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Making sure. Thank you, sir.
Bob, that takes us, what, to the last page of this piece before we take a break for lunch?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. That — I just wanted to point out that we did add there -- you can see it
highlighted in yellow there, just to clarify, necessary warranty and manuals, so on and so forth, just a further
modifier that you know, we want to provide the necessary information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And then that's it for --
Page 47 of 85
March 1, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Exhibit G will probably go away mostly or change in some manner to
accommodate. And then when we break for lunch, what I'd like to do when we get back is try to get through
the GMP pari of it.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just like to remind the Planning Commission that we've made a lot of
changes that are going to have to be reflected in the GMP. To save time, we don't need to repeat all that. We
just need to focus on how the GMP needs additional changes as a result of the ones we haven't already
basically discussed.
MR. MULHERE: And it's just two pages, so, really, we should be able to do that pretty quickly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then anything that this panel has to finish up this project when we get
back from lunch is what we'll focus on. Then after that we'll move into the City Gate site plan or the City
Gate PUD and sports park.
Okay. With that, we'll take a break for lunch. Well be back here at 1:00.
A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from lunch, everybody.
We left off with some -- with our discussions with the mini -triangle projects and the three different
applications in front of us today.
When we left ofd we were going to come back to the Growth Management Plan changes suggested
by the applicant for today's meeting. Now, these were done before all the discussion we had this morning. So
I looked them over again, and there's quite a few issues there that are going to have to be changed.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But with that, do you want to present first, Bob, and then we'll go into
any -- I know Ned had indicated he's got some questions. We'll go from there.
MR. M[ILHERE: Yes. And I -- Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. Based on the discussion this
morning, we kind of already have a lot of direction, and our thought is -- and I've already talked to the staff.
And we're going to get together with the staff probably this coming week, spend a few hours, make sure
we've got everything covered, get this right. There's -- various people are not available in your next March
meeting, so we probably wouldn't get back to you until April, because we want to make sure the people that
have been involved will be here: Heidi and Eric.
So it will probably be first meeting in April. That should give us plenty of time to get this right and
get it to you well in advance of that meeting so you have time to review it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. That's a better time frame. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can you define "well in advance"?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two days.
MR. MULHERE: At least 10 days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. You'll get them to staff at least 10 days. Staff doesn't get them to
us till six or seven days.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've got to be processed by staff, and that's the other piece of the
problem.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, did you want to go through anything that you are -- entertain
questions at this point.
MR. MULHERE: I think so, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, you said you had issues. You wanted to talk about the
language even though its still changing, so let's go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, Ism going to defer right now, if I may, because I don't think I
have the right thing up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any GMP issues at this time?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any because it's going to change so radically. There's no sense
Page 48 of 85
March 1, 2018
of spending a lot of time from my perspective on it at this point. I'll wait till the rewrite comes in, and we'll
make sure the rewrite's consistent with the discussions we had today.
MR. MULHERE: And, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to maybe make one point. As David indicated to
you earlier this morning, now what is the statutory requirements for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
or -- and we have to describe the uses sufficiently that, you know -- although general, because they can be
more specific in the zoning, with respect to -- and we have to have maximum levels of either density or
intensity, and we will for sure have those. The degree to which we feel like we need some extra information
based on this petition, we'll meet with staff, and we'll go over that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I might wart to caution you on is we have a provision that
allows you to expand the maximum by going to the Board of County Commissioners for a supernajority.
Obviously, you're going to have to have some kind of ranges in the GMP to match up to the LDC —
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but if you expand beyond those ranges and they're in the GMP, you'll be
looking at a small-scale plan amendment, just so you know.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. We'll consider that as well. Thank you. Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So other than that, unless somebody has anything they want to bring up on
the GMP issue, we'll move on.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: When this comes back to us, it will be red lined to what we got on
February 15th; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It's almost a full rewrite. I don't see much on what we
currently have that's useful. Plus, I think the points that you made, to the extent they can be provided, they
may be considering language that may provide some of that information as well if it's not already there.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Fryer, really, we're -- substantively, we're talking about a two-page
document, this GMP. And I don't know, it might be less now because -- you know, based on the direction
we've gotten today. But I agree, it would be more confusing to take the previous document, strikethrough and
red line it, than it would be to give you a document --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: If it's that small, that's fine.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we are starting with almost a new effort here based on all the
back-and-forths we've had. So I'd rather be able to read it clean and then understand where to go from there if
there's something, and we could always go back to our notes and see if there were issues that were missed.
That might be an easier way to do it than anything else at this point.
MR. MULHERE: I think so, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, then, we'll move into -- do you have anything else, Bob,
that you want to bring up? Norm is anxiously waiting to try to explain things better than he did the first time
around. And since the conversion table's off the table, he may be able to do that.
MR. MULHERE: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Do you want to go to your PowerPoint?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So we need to go to the visualizer. I mean, the -- excuse me -- podium
computer. And there you are. You can cut that -- close that one. Just close it. And you should be
somewhere on here. There you go.
MR. TREBILCOCK: So good afternoon. Again, for the record, my name is Norm Trebilcoek. Pm
a certified planner and professional engineer and our firm, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, prepared the
traffic impact statement or analysis for the project.
And Ion going to -- what I was planning to do is cover some of the points that you -all had made the
last time. I obviously won't do the conversion stuff, I'll skip through that; but wanted to cover some of the
points that you -all had made and to better define things.
And that was really the trip distribution and assignment. There were some questions about if we -- to
use a link analysis information in trying to show that, and then also you had some questions about site access
Page 49 of 85
March I, 2018
to look at surrounding projects and to see the consistency with access, so that's what I'll plan to cover for you
here.
Again, the development program, no change there from what we presented, and this is also
information in the Traffic Impact Statement, but it's based on this highest -and -best -use scenario here, and that
establishes the trip cap for the project, which, again, is an adjusted number in the far right-hand column. The
875, that's the peak hour p.m. trips, two-way trips, that was used for the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Norm, do you want us to talk and ask questions as you go along, or do
you want to wait till the end? What would you prefer?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. If it's okay to wait to the end, would that be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What slide number is this?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Or we can go through it each time, if you'd like. That's fine. Whatever is best
for you guys.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know what the preference was; if you had a concern. So if that's
what we're -- I certainly have a question with this particular document. I don't know if anybody else does. I'll
defer to the Planning Commission first. Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Let you do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this trip generation, you're using 875 as the p.m. peak hour cap for the
project.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to get the 875, you're relying on total internal capture and total pass -by
capture so that you have a net external impact of 654. So if your external impact is not supposed to exceed
654, where are we using 875? That's the cap that you have in the PUD. So why wouldn't we be using 654 as
the cap? Because that's the net -net -net. I mean, that's like boiling down to the bottom line, right?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. And you can, but that's more of a policy that — in transportation
planning, I believe what you've established. And I've seen it go both ways, quite frankly. But this way it's
just the gross trips, and that's it. You can certainly do a net -net as well --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is with the mix that this project could go.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're looking at all kinds of swings. By the time we get done, we've
got to figure out how many particular uses. You may not have uses that have -- you could have a
conservation uses (sic) of higher -end traffic counts.
You may not get the pass -by and internal capture rates that you're talking about here, and we would
have no way of controlling that if they were irrelevant to the number that was used to peg the site's total
impact of 875. That's why 654 may be a better number for the county to use in this regard. And between
now and when you come back in April, you might want to consider that, and we'll listen to arguments either
way.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. No, that's a good point. And we just make sure the language is specific
that it's the net new trips, exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's that --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. I've seen it done that way as well, so that's a good point. So I'll
definitely mark that down as a point to work out with staff then, too.
Okay. And as mentioned, you know, we use -- we looked at internal capture, and then also -- so that
comes up to an external. So the internal capture are uses that are interacting with each other so that you really
have less trips on the highway totally.
The pass -by trips, again, that's somebody that's on the road network anyways, and they're going to
pass by. And they're going to stop in and leave.
So when we do the link analysis, we subtract the pass -by trips, when we do the link analysis, because
those are trips that are on the road network already for that.
But when we do the design for the site access, though, we include the pass -by trips because those
trips are actually coming across our driveway, so they have an effect on the access.
And just as a note for you, we did look at the 10th edition overall for the project, and it came out to
Page 50 of 85
March 1, 2018
865 vehicles per hour for the gross unadjusted, which is, you know, very close to what we did with the
10th -- the ninth edition that this was based on, because when we did the original study for this project, it was
back in March of last year, and the 10th edition hadn't come out yet. So just, you know, informational for
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Skip through the conversions there.
The other part we covered before was this is the distribution, and this is the trips per hour, and this is
the number that I used in the link analysis. And so I think the questions you -all had last time is how do these
trips really come into the site. So I've got this other exhibit that I'll show you where the trips will come in and
out, and that's what this is reflective here.
So, for instance, you're going to have 142 trips that are going to come back to the link to — on 41 to
Goodlette-Frank, and so some of those trips are identified here, and then a hundred -- some of the trips are
identified here as well, and those added together will give us the 142, the link volume there.
Then the 119 that's coming from this same link splits off, and some of those go on Davis, and then
the others will take a left turn into the site off of U.S. 41.
And so this kind of adds up to all those link trips, where they come from, where they go to. U-turn
movements, those kind of things. But from an operations standpoint, we don't really use these numbers for
sizing turn lanes or anything like that. What we, in fact, use are the higher trips that we've identified in this
exhibit where we'll show a greater amount of trips, and also, just so you understand, too, when we were
looking at the site here, we've been coordinating with the site next door, the Trio site, which is right here to
the west of us.
So coordinating with them, we've used, in the traffic study -- and I provide this to you in the traffic
study -- the turning movements that they provided for their site, we use those and added those to our turn lane
needs for our project as well. So the numbers that I'm showing you here are reflective of our site traffic as
well as the adjacent site that may use the site, the shared driveway here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while we're on that plan --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what numbers did you use for Trio?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. For Trio?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, because if you added Trio to what you've got here today, you
obviously had to use their numbers.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what they show for existing trips on their latest conversion was 14 new
p.m. peak hour; proposed trips 111, with a net new trips of 97. At least that's on Table C of their TIS report,
Page 5.
MR, TREBILCOCK: Yes. In our traffic study report, what we provided to you in there on Page 41
of the study that we provided is their exhibit Figure 2B that shows their trip movements. And I can put them
on the visualizer here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also, Norm, when you deal with hotels, on a hotel room, is the trip
higher or lower than a multifamily? Yeah, that's -- now, that's the old one. Thais not the newest one
because --
MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm sorry. But that's the one of record that was provided to us, so that's what
we've used. We've been in coordination with them, and that's what was provided to us from them, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, their latest effort is 84 total rooms and 12 residential, and that's up
from 48 hotel -- what?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no. We can definitely look at that and use that if that's been submitted
as --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm telling you, yes.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was submitted to staff within the last couple weeks as a ZVL request for
conversion to add the -- or not conversion -- for ability to add those additional hotel rooms.
Page 51 of 85
March 1, 2018
Do hotel rooms have more of a traffic impact than multifamily?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Based on the conversions, yes, they would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then the reason I'm asking is because when you come back, I'd
like to see how the latest effort of Trio has on that entrance on 41. I think that would be important to know.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, yeah. As long as we can get that information from them. Again, I can
only work off of what is provided, and this was the last --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can't get it from them, email me, and I'll send you what they asked
for.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks. Awesome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So we'll update that.
So based on those trips, at least I just wanted to cover for you, and then this is kind of an overview,
again, of the accesses that we've proposed on the project. Another item that you wanted to look at is kind of
nearby accesses and driveways. And I just wanted to kind of run you through.
You kriow, a big part of, you know, whether or not you do turn lanes or not -- and in this case it's
really -- its both Davis and U.S. 41 are FDOT roadway. And so they will do the analysis. We provide them
traffic studies when we're actually developing.
We've had preliminary meetings with them and provided my initial studies, but they'll ultimately
make the determination of need. So they'll independently review everything we provide to them.
But I just want to provide you this exhibit so you can kind of see and -- one of the items you had
talked about But if we look at the segment of 41, this is Airport Road down to Davis, okay, and we look
along this segment of roadway here. It's along that length of roadway, which is 1.2 miles of road. If you're
heading westbound or northbound, there's 40 drives, and there's seven public streets. There is only one turn
lane in that segment of roadway, that 1.2 miles of roadway, and that right -turn lane is at Davis, okay.
So from a driver expectation standpoint, there isn't expectation to have turn lanes and, from a
consistency standpoint, turn lanes would be inconsistent in this area.
And one of the things to understand is when you don't have turn -- turn lanes are great in a suburban
design. Promote therm. And that's why we have them, because they help maintain that mainline capacity of
the roadway.
The negative is is they -- you'll tend to have higher operating speeds as a result. You look at, you
know, Livingston Road, well-controlled roadway, turn lanes everywhere. You have a higher operating speed.
In an area where you're trying to create an urban environment in a bit of maybe a downtown area that
isn't quite in downtown Naples, you may have some other interests, and that's really what's identified here.
Now, again, if you take it a point further -- and I'm going to go on U.S. 41 between four corners,
which is Fifth Avenue South, and Golden Gate Parkway; that section of road. That's 2.11 miles of roadway.
There's 34 driveways when you're heading north, 18 public roadway streets, and there are zero right -tum
lanes along that segment of roadway.
When you head southbound on that same segment of roadway, there's 27 driveways, 14 public roads,
and there's one right -turn lane. It's at Fifth Avenue South, okay.
So when we look at consistency, driver expectation, there isn't an expectation to have a right -turn
lane in these -- especially these urban type areas that we have. Okay.
Again, though, we'll tend to rely on the DOT for making those determinations for us, because they
use different criteria than Collier County. But I just, you know, wanted to address at least that point you -all
had made to us, you know, to give you kind of good examples and kind of a setting of, you know,
consistency or no consistency with what we're proposing. And, really, what we're proposing is consistent
with the standards.
In the conclusions of our analysis, you know, the project, as we talked about, is exempt from
concurrency, but it is also not an adverse traffic generator because there's no level -of -service issues.
The surrounding roadways will be operating at a satisfactory level of service. We do have what we
call significant impacts, because we're above 2 percent of the link, but they're not adverse, because there's not
a level of service.
Page 52 of 85
March 1, 2018
The existing nine drives serving the site will be consolidated to two on Davis Boulevard and two on
U.S. 41. We also plan to have interconnects to adjacent parcels and west.
And understand, too, when I looked at the preliminary numbers for tum lanes and stuff, just -- I
didn't include an interconnect to the parcel to the east, and I think that's going to be significant down the road
when it develops, because that gives you a connection to Commercial Drive which has access to a signal. So
I think that will be a bit -- you know, so our numbers are conservative; i.e., high.
Again, right -turn lanes, based on our preliminary analysis and what we've presented to the
department, aren't warranted based on their criteria. They have a range, actually, of 80 to 125. Just because
you hit 80 doesn't mean they're going to say you need to do a right turn lane. It's — within that range, they're
tend to consider it.
Left -turn lane extensions, they are warranted on both roads, so I would look to anticipate needing to
extend turn lanes in both cases.
And then, again, there will be an independent review by the Department of Transportation based on
actual traffic.
And, you know, it's a good point about, like, the latest data as we move forward so we incorporate
that, and that's heightened when it comes to the Site Development Plan. That way you have as of record.
And the Department of Transportation would look at that. And what we're proposing, again, is to consolidate
a drive which is something that they desire us to do as well.
A transit stop accommodation is proposed and coordinated with CAT as well, and mitigation is site
improvements, interconnection, and payment of impact fees.
So with that, I'm available to answer any questions or things that I may not have covered that you
wanted me to cover.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from transportation perspective. Anybody? Any issues?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have four enhances, and --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and exits. Two of there to the east aren't used as much as the front two.
The one off Davis has a higher traffic count than the one off 41. By the next time you comeback, I just want
to make sure we've got the 41 one covered.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this project began, you -all said you'd put decel lanes in. And while
the other exits aren't as important from the perspective of volume, that one on 41 is. What would be the
chances of being able to fit a decel lane for that one on your project?
MR. TREBILCOCK: To put a tum lane in along that frontage?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Decel just for that main entrance, because that's going to have all the
activity.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I understand, and that's something we can address more closely with you
when we resubmit, you know, to see if the warrants are met, here's how we would -- how we would
accomplish it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, no. Let's not talk about the warrants.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just talk about if it should be done immediately --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, irrespective.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --so that you don't have to deal with moving buildings or not. I know you
wouldn't.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Plan for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you need to plan for it. Originally you planned for it. Now I'm just
trying to say, okay, if you originally planned for it and now they're not needed, why would they be needed
originally? And if they're not needed, then fine. Did you have something from DOT that says they don't want
Page 53 of 85
March 1, 2018
them there?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. I don't recall -- we hadn't ever identified that we need to do turn lanes
for the site, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't, but your client did.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I just would like to get that vetted out because it is a concern expressed
by the City of Naples folks both in that one permit we got from Gregg, and then I think City Council person,
Ms. Penniman, was here.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Pd like to put that to bed; either they should be there or not or
especially this one.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you could do a study to take -- someone of you could take a look at
your plan and see if that can fit in if needed --
MR. TREBILCOCK: No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — that would be a better way to approach it. Now, if the DOT says we don't
like the idea, we don't want it, I'd like to see that, too. And that would take the question out of play then.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, sure. That makes sense. I'll do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm looking at the 2017 AIIIIt, and this part of the East Trail that we're
talking about is projected to have a 5 to 10 percent -- well, it had a 5 to 10 percent increase over 2016 and,
presumably, it will increase again in succeeding years.
Conversely, the part of Davis Boulevard that is in question is in green, which means 5 to 10 percent
decrease from 2016 to '17.
My question is, is there any way to incent more traffic to use Davis?
MR. TREBILCOCK: You know -- yeah. You know, people take the path of least resistance, so if
there is lesser traffic, they'll tend to migrate towards that area. I mean, that's -- you know, there's not any, say,
specific design element. I think we've got pretty evenly our driveways set up. So I think, all things being
equal, somebody is going to take the path of least resistance, you know. And so that's what I think will really
help with that.
I mean, beyond that, I don't see any, say, engineering things that we could do with the project per se
to change things, but I think we offer access on both sides so that folks could take Davis if there's less
friction. So it's a good point.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But there are no engineering things that you could see doing to create a
greater incentive to enter from Davis?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Nothing hits me offhand. I can think about things, but I don't really -- nothing
comes to me to say, hey, how can we really encourage folks to use one access versus another. I mean, short
of, you know, closing an access, but that's not really — wouldn't — I don't think would be recommended here,
you know.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Any other questions or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we -- we wore you out last time, Norm.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. It's good guidance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks for all your inforniation. Appreciate it.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thanks. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to any other remaining questions of the applicant by the
Planning Commission. If not, we'll go to staff report.
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric? Eric, in your staff report now, you've heard a lot of changes being
Page 54 of 85
March 1. 2018
suggested. I just want to make sure that staff feels they have adequate time to review them and write anew
report and get us a concise document that we can use at the next meeting.
I'd stress to the applicant that after the document's distributed, don't give us any more paperwork.
Let's just live with the document and try to deal with that.
So with that, I'll turn to you two guys.
MR. JOHNSON: Sure, Mr. Chair. Eric Johnson, principal planner.
I'm prepared to write a supplemental staff report. It seems like the dates that the -- or the date that the
applicant chose would give us sufficient time. It wouldn't be on our normal time schedule, but given what
this project is and where it's going, absolutely, I feel we can get that accomplished.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And do you have anything to add as a result of today's conversation,
or is staff still fine with what they need to proceed with and --
MR. JOHNSON: I just would want one part clarified --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. JOHNSON: -- because I don't think it was — there was any definite direction.
On Page 4 of your handout -- on Page 4 of your handout we talked about reductions below the
minimums and a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, it would be supermajority, vote.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So what type of application are we talking about? Is this going to be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have to be a PUDA to get to the Board, yeah.
MR. JOHNSON: PUDA. All right. That's what I wanted to know. That's good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the same time, if -- and Pm more -- the GMP will probably
address maximums. I'm not sure it will address minimums. So if they get to a maximum threshold that has to
be modified, it may take two levels of changes at the -- but I mentioned that to Bob, and Bob's going
to -- their client will talk about it, so...
MR. JOHNSON: And also, based on what I said before, I will ask, you know, Cary Keith at the
airport authority -- I don't see his --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's not here at this point.
MR. JOHNSON: But, obviously, I can control, you know, from a staff perspective, but anyone from
outside of staff, we'll try our best to pester.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ask him to get his information to you so it can be distributed timely to us
because it came in last night. So it would be helpful to have it with your staff report.
Bob, did you have something you wanted to add?
MR. MULHERE: I did mention I talked to him, and he and I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Him" being?
MR. MULHERE: Jerry. We'll get together, we'll resolve the language regarding the land code
amendment. The PUD amendment, that comes out. It's the normal process. We don't need that language in
there. It's the normal process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Okay. I agree with you.
MR. MULHERE: And we're not asking to increase any of the maximums, so we just have to have
the right ranges in there that we've discussed here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Eric, you want to add?
MR. JOHNSON: Nope, that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, are there any members of the public here who wish to
speak on this item?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, for everybody's starting points, I've made notes as we've
worked along. I'd just like to read those off so you -all make sure -- I don't want this to have to be continued
again. So let's just make sure everything --all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted for the first of April.
You're going to review the decel lane at U.S. 41 westbound. You're going to have two or more
multistory buildings three floors or greater with a mix of commercial, including retail, restaurant, and offices.
Now, I would suggest you pick up square footages, minimums for those, as part of the issue. I'm not worried
Page 55 of 85
March 1, 2018
about maximums in those buildings as much as minimums to start with.
You're going to limit surface parking. That was from last time. You're going to have no stand-alone
commercial, must be paired with at least two other commercial uses. You're going to remove -- you're going
to have -- your flexibility is roughly the ranges that we've talked about today. You might want to consider
combining the commercial for a range but then break out the minimum amount of office within that range or
something like that so you don't have office and retail. They're both commercial. Something to consider.
Modify the conversion tables to be consistent -- well, that's gone now, so, yeah. That's my note from
last time.
You're going to have -- your storage areas will be air conditioned, inside storage, of no greater than
60,000. Your dealers -- car dealer will be air conditioned inside with no greater than 30,000. You're going to
address the warrant bays and repair bays and how they're going to be secured or not secured but at least
treated within the internal project.
The minimum residential component of 20 percent will be between 500 -- maximum residential
component of between 500 and 700. It will be 20 percent.
The height, you're going to use the -- not a -- you're going to use the LDC language modified to the
extent you work it out with the airport authority. You're going to provide that -- a little more clarity to that
exhibit --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based on the discussions with Heidi.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The uses that you -- that remain in the project, I didn't check to see if you've
corrected those from the time we talked last time, but that will need to be done if it hasn't already been done.
MR. MULHERE: Consistency is what we're talking about, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's right.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take a look at the traffic count net trips versus gross trips. And Norm said
he would look at that, and that's something we ought to consider, and we'll have more talk on that next time.
MR. MULHERE: Net new, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You're going to have a minimum of three tracts on this project, and
the first and second phase will have to have criteria in it as to what your mix will be. I think the concern is
you're going to wait and deal with the mixed something -- all of it -- try to do it all at the last one, and you
could walk away on the last one. Just suggest what you -- look at parameters for the first two tracts so we
know that there's something going to be there.
The airport letter that came in, No. 6 is not going to work. It's inconsistent with the LDC. We're
going to just leave that with the LDC, so when you discuss that with the airport authority, that's probably
something that willl go away.
Last — oh, the last building. When you -- to meet the minimum requirements, the requirement
language in the last building, it was upon the building of -- building after you got a building permit. I think
the requirements are only met upon CO, because you may build square footage that you haven't decided how
it's going to lease out yet, and that may have an impact on how you eventually meet that minimum
requirement.
So on that third parcel, you might want to take a look at how that could work in from a CO
perspective instead of a building permit perspective. And I believe that's all the issues.
I'm turning to the Planning Commission. Has anything been missed that you guys can think of?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm still somewhat frustrated over an inability to come up with
language that fulfills expectations that I think were set some time ago. Another way possibly to approach it
would be to find objective language, perhaps, that describes finishes or other construction criteria that, when
they are added up, would yield -- well, would come as close as possible to conforming to these wonderful
pictures that you've submitted to us. They're -- surely there is language so that no matter what uses are
ultimately determined the market will bear, from the outside it's going to look real nice.
And I challenge you, again, to try to come up with language that would get us there. It would make
Page 56 of 85
March 1, 2018
me a lot more comfortable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so -- Bob and Jerry, we have done that before in other projects. So
if there's some elements of this project that are improvements over some standard construction that you feel
you're going to use, then maybe a range of them ought to be in there, or something to that effect. That might
help.
MR. MULHERE: Architectural design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And thafs all I've got. Do you guys have anything?
MR. STARKEY: I just wanted to address two points that you made.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. STARKEY: And one was you said there will be three tracts. We have a requirement to build
two or more buildings, so we could actually combine tracts and wind up with the tracts and still meet all the
minimums.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The concern that I have -- and the only reason I said that is, I realize
you can re -plat and changes tracts. If you do that and this whole thing's linked to the last tract, and all of a
sudden the last tract becomes 10 feet by 10 feet, we've got a problem. You know what --
MR. STARKEY: Well, of course. It's a building pad. So, obviously, in that case, if we had it
re -platted and we were coining in for the second and the last building, right, then that last building would
have to meet all the criterias of the minimum, or you wouldn't issue a building permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. And --
MR. STARKEY: And if there's three pads, the last buildable pad we can't get a building permit until
we either have CO'ed all the minimums or we have a combination of CO'ed and under construction all the
minimums or CO'ed and under construction, and the new last building permit would complete all of the
minimums.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the CO would -- at the point of CO, the last building, we would
acknowledge all the minimums, yeah. That would give you time to change tenants if you needed to.
MR. STARKEY: Or you could hold up the CO if somebody decided, you know, you need this
office, and they want to switch it to retail, and you say, no, that's not what we agreed to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I wanted to make sure, why I said the tracts is if you start
changing around the tracts a bit, that last tract has to have the capability of functioning like we're intending
for it today.
MR. STARKEY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the piece I'll be looking at when it comes back.
MR. STARKEY: Absolutely; yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm thinking. Thank you.
Anything else?
MR. STARKEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. We're good. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Now, this is going to be pushed till April?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, basically, yeah, we're not taking -- we're not doing a motion today on
this. We've just read everything in the summary, we've talked to staff, public participation. So I'll read off
the three items that we were discussing, and I believe we can make a motion to continue them all jointly. We
haven't got to do it separately.
So the first one is the small-scale plan amendment. It's PL20160003048/CPSS-2016-3,
PL20160003054, and LDCA-PL20160003642. We're looking for a motion to continue those to April -- the
first meeting in April, which is April 5th.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: When they're continued, when they comeback, are they coming back
as consent items where we only address —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, We haven't voted on them yet.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Whole thing.
Page 57 of 85
March 1, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't hit consent until we vote first, and we're not going to vote first
on these.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll do our best to wrap the two of them up, consent and everything in
that one meeting. My assumption is, after the two meetings we've had, you guys should know what
everybody's looking for, and we'll try to get it as close as we can.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll snake that motion then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ned to continue to the April 5th meeting.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane.
Discussion?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye,
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Thank you. Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make a note that if there is readvertising, we'll do that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Okay. With that, now that we've been warned up, we'll turn to the next two advertised public
hearings for the same project. They'll be discussed concurrently, voted separately. Most likely --well,
almost assuredly they won't be voted on today.
The first one is 9E. It's P1,20170002330. It's the City Gate Commerce Park Planned Unit
Development MPUD. The second one is PL20170002634, and it's the City Gate Commerce Park DRI.
All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure everybody noticed Nick Casalanguida's here, and he stood up to
talk. This will be entertaining.
Nick, I couldn't pass it up.
Disclosures. We'll start on the end with Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just some correspondence fi•om the engineer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Conversation with the applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing, okay.
I have had numerous meetings with staff and with the applicant over long periods of time on various
aspects of this project in both applications.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMAIK: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just other than saying hi to the applicant out in the hallway, that was
it, before the meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One thing I'd like to point out, when our packages carne out, all
1,500 pages, they did not include the TIS. TIS came in it was either Tuesday or Wednesday. I have not
Page 58 of 85
Page 1 of 3
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., APRIL 5, 2018, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,
NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED
10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE
CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC
MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT
SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE
PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO
BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO
THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS
BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD
AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 1, 2018
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Note: This item has been continued from the March 1, 2018, CCPC meeting
A. PL20170002684: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida, granting a parking exemption, to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot
zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and providing for repeal of Resolution No.
09-152, relating to a prior parking exemption. The subject property is located
between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Principal
Planner]
Page 2 of 3
Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018, CCPC meeting,
and the March 1, 2018, CCPC meeting:
B. PL20160003084: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida,
specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and
Map Series by adding the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow
construction of up to, with a mix to be determined by maximum allowable traffic
generation, 377 multi-family dwelling units, 228 hotel suites, 111,000 square feet of
gross floor area of commercial uses and 90,000 square feet of gross floor area of
general and medical office uses, 150 assisted living units, 60,000 square feet of self-
storage and 30,000 square feet of new car dealership; providing for maximum height
of 168 feet. The subject property is located near the southern corner of the
intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township
50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5.35 acres; and furthermore, recommending
transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date.
(Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner) [Companion to PUDZ-
PL20160003054 & LDC-PL20160003642]
Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018, CCPC meeting,
and the March 1, 2018, CCPC meeting:
C. PL20160003054: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described
real property from a General Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the
Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to
a Mixed Use Planned Unit development in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway
Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district for a
project known as the Mini-Triangle MPUD to allow construction of up to, with a mix
to be determined by allowable traffic generation, 377 multi-family dwelling units, 228
hotel suites, 111,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses and 90,000
square feet of gross floor area of general and medical office uses, 150 assisted living
units, 60,000 square feet of self-storage and 30,000 square feet of new car dealership;
providing for maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near the southern
corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section
11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.35±
acres; providing for repeal of conditional use resolutions; and by providing an
effective date. (Companion to PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle
Subdistrict and LDCA-PL20160003642) [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal
Planner]
Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018, CCPC meeting,
and the March 1, 2018, CCPC meeting:
D. LDCA-PL20160003642: An Ordinance of the Board Of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance number 04-41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for:
Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of
Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the
following: Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including section
4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones, to exempt the Mini-Triangle
Subdistrict of the Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth
Management Plan from the Height Standards for Development in Airport Zones;
Page 3 of 3
Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County
Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. (Companion to
PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and PL20160003054 Mini-
Triangle MPUD) [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager]
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJOURN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp