Loading...
Agenda 03/23/2021 Item # 2C (Draft Minutes 3/01/2021 Meeting)03/23/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.C Item Summary: March 1, 2021 BCC Special Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 03/23/2021 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 03/15/2021 3:02 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 03/15/2021 3:02 PM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Dan Rodriguez County Manager Review Completed 03/16/2021 10:34 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 03/23/2021 9:00 AM 2.C Packet Pg. 15 March 1, 2021 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, March 1, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Penny Taylor William L. McDaniel, Jr. Rick LoCastro Burt L. Saunders Andy Solis ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Daniel Rodriguez, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations March 1, 2021 Page 2 MR. OCHS: You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. We are here today on a special meeting to discuss One Naples. It is my intention to evaluate where we are about 3:00. If we have tens of tens of speakers at that point, I intend to stop the meeting at that point and continue it Tuesday morning. It's my understanding that we do have leadership from different neighborhoods. They are going to be entitled to a 15-minute presentation. I do have a list of one neighborhood, but I don't have them all. So I would ask that you identify yourself with my assistant, Sherry Greco, so that she can provide the list to all of us. This is a very important meeting. We are going to have a court reporter break at 10:30 and another one at 2:30. We are going to be very strict about that. We are also going to be having a lunch. Our lunch will be from 12:00 to 1:00 or 12:15 to 1:00, but no later than that. It is my intention that we conduct ourselves like ladies and gentlemen talking to ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the passion. I appreciate the enthusiasm. I appreciate the anger on both sides, but we're here to have a record that is open and is clean as it possibly can be and with that, I would ask your cooperation. Thank you very much. So on that -- MR. OCHS: Start with the pledge, ma'am? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Let's stand and have the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a single-item agenda today. You have four related items. Three of those are advertised public hearings; one is a staff item. March 1, 2021 Page 3 I'll go ahead and assume that we're going to hear these all together, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Point of order. We're hearing them all together, but we are voting on them separately; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: The will of the Board at the time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that the intention of this board to vote on these separately? We were going to hear them all togeth er, but we're going to vote on them separately. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I -- we're going to hear them together. I think we can make the executive decision as to whether or not we need to vote on them independently but it, certainly on precept, is a good idea to vote on them in aggregate as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The only difference being some of them require three votes, some require four votes but, at the end of the day, you have to approve all of these items; otherwise, it doesn't work. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct. At this point we are going to be voting on them separately, understanding that some of these items require three votes, some require four. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, with your permission, I'll go ahead and read the titles on the four items, and then I think at that point it would be appropriate for ex parte disclosure and swearing in all of the participants. So let me begin with Item 2A. This is a recommendation to vacate the county and public interest in Gulf Shore Court, 20-foot alley in Block D, and a portion of Center Street, all part of the plat of March 1, 2021 Page 4 Vanderbilt Beach Center as part of the application for the One Naples project. Item 2B is a recommendation to approve by ordinance the Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict, amending the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and map series by amending the urban mixed-use district residential subdistrict to add the Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict to allow construction of up to 172 multifamily dwelling units but no less than 40 residential units and 10,000 square feet of C -3 commercial intermediate commercial uses and a marina and a ship store. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Item 2B requires ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and all participants are required to be sworn in. This is a proposed amendment to the Collier County Land Development Code that changes the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a commercial intermediate district, C-3 zoning district, to a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development zoning district for the project to be known as One Naples MPUD. And, finally, Item 3A is a recommendation to authorize the chairman to sign a Collier County landscape maintenance agreement between Collier County and Vanderbilt Naples Holding, LLC, for developer funded improvements to landscape, irrigation, lighting, brick pavers, and other site furnishing improvements within the rights-of-way abutting the One Naples project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Let's -- we should start our ex parte. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. On 2A and 2C I have -- I think it goes back to 2016 -- meetings, enumerable emails with constituents and the developer's representatives. Too many to list March 1, 2021 Page 5 individually. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And I believe I have the same, pretty much everything across the board since the day I took this seat. So meetings, correspondence, emails, calls, enumerable amounts across the board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And maybe your conversation with protesters this morning. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, yeah. That, too. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, I've had meetings as well as phone calls, correspondence both with proponents of the project and with folks that are opposed to the project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Good morning. And I as well, all the way across the board, meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I, too, have had meetings, correspondence, emails, calls, I visited the site, we had meetings last week with the developer and developer's attorney as well as the opponents on the same day. Thank you. MR. OCHS: It's appropriate to swear in all the participants at this point, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Other than -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask a question before you do that. Don't we need to advise the folks that are online remotely that they're being sworn in at the same time? MR. MILLER: Sir, on the registration form, they check a box affirming that they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you. March 1, 2021 Page 6 MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want my consultant -- I'm sorry. Madam Chair, do you want our consultants to come in and swear now, or do you want to swear them individually when they come in later? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think for timing it would be helpful if they came in. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be great. If you'll give them a second. Hopefully they're listening. There they are. (The speakers present in the boardroom were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Troy, the last time I operated this thing, I broke it. So can you help me pull it up, please. MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. I got you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Yes. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant in this matter. I will -- our outline of how we're going to present today is to -- I'll do a brief overview of the project and where we're going from here. Bob Mulhere will testify as to the planning aspects, Jim Banks will testify as to the transportation-related impacts, Brian Stock will speak about the project, and then I'll do a wrap-up. But I want to introduce the entire team because they're here if you have any specific questions. Brian Stock, with Stock Development, is basically the main speaker for our team; Keith Gelder with Stock Development; and Chris Johnson and Claudine Wetzel is also with our team. Bob Hall is our architecture; he's here. Chris Mitchell is our engineer; he's here to answer any questions you may have. Jim Banks is here to answer transportation questions; Mr. Mulhere is here to answer any March 1, 2021 Page 7 planning questions; and we have Hunter Booth here to answer any landscape-related questions you may have regarding the project. But this is our entire team that is available to answer any questions that you may have. As the County Manager has gone over, we have four petiti ons before you. We have a Growth Management Plan amendment, which is a legislative decision, and your county staff is recommending approval of that Growth Management Plan amendment, which is basically allowing for 172 dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of commercial on the property. We have a PUD rezone, which is a quasi-judicial decision. You have staff recommendation of approval from your transportation, environmental, and utilities staff, and you have a recommendation of approval from your zoning staff with certain conditions. The next petition is a right-of-way vacation which your staff is recommending approval and, finally, the landscape maintenance agreement, which your staff is also recommending approval. At the end of the day, we have two options when you finally deliberate and make your decision. It's to either approve the four petitions, or the property remains C-3 zoning, and the property will be developed with the existing development rights on this property. That's -- people have always perceived that as a threat. It's just a fact. The fact is the property is zoned C-3, and those are the entitlements that are on that property. The current zoning, as I mentioned, is C-3. In the purple and blue is the boundaries of the PUD, and in the green is the DaRuMa parcel. The burden is on us to persuade the County Commission to change its Comprehensive Plan and change its zoning on the property. We are going to go and take a little bit of different approach in our presentation today. We all read the papers. We all March 1, 2021 Page 8 know that there are some concerns about the project as it's currently proposed, which is 12 stories over two of parking. I could do a two-hour presentation on 12-over-two knowing that I don't think I'll be successful with the 12-over-two presentation. I don't want to waste your time with that 12-over-two presentation, so we're going to go to what we believe is the bottom line that we can accept, or we have to stay with the C-3 zoning. So that's going to be the different approach. We're going to cut to the chase with our presentation, and we're going to explain those differences. But before we get to the bottom line, I think it's important that we go over the history of the project, how we got to where we are, and we also go over what information has been provided to the general public because there's, frankly, a lot of misinformation out there about what this project really is, what it's really going to look like, and how it's really going to impact the community versus the existing C-3 zoning on the property. We're going to present the facts because, in our opinion, the truth matters, and the truth has not been told, and we're going to tell the truth. The zoning is C3. It's on the -- it's on your -- it's on your screen. Under C-3 zoning, that is not a small neighborhood-related project. It is a commercial project that can be an attractor. This is a waterfront piece of property, and it is an attractor. There's been a lot of information about how people don't really come to this site as it currently exists and they won't come to this site as it's redeveloped for commercial. The bottom line is, people do come to this site from all over the place, all parts of Collier County, and even some from Lee County, and the fact is that we have two experts in Collier County commercial, David Stevens and Dan O'Berski, who believe available to answer any questions you may have regarding the potential development of this site as commercial. March 1, 2021 Page 9 There are some other facts that you will hear mainly from Jim Banks, our transportation consultant. But this project that we're proposing, One Naples, will add 45 p.m. peak-hour trips to the road above what currently exists with the existing development already on the property. You have existing development on the property today. You have the Beach Box, you have a real estate office, you have a convenience store, and you have DaRuMa's. At the end of the day, when we develop this property with One Naples, we will add 45 p.m. peak-hour trips. If the C-3 is developed, it will add 404 p.m. peak-hour trips over what's already there today. So the commercial option adds nine times the amount of traffic than what we're proposing. And what we have heard from the community is, they're concerned about traffic. If they're concerned about traffic, the residential option is clearly the better choice. Now, let's put that in 24 hour -- 24-hour p.m. peak hour -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't mean to interrupt you, but would you say the traffic on the C-3 zoning again; how many trips? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we were to develop C-3, knock down everything that's there today and develop 100,000 square feet, 404 p.m. peak-hour trips. So let's talk about a 24-hour period. Over a 24-hour period -- the residential option will add 828 trips in a 24-hour period above what's there today. The C-3 option will add 4,625 trips, daily trips, over what's there today. I can't do that in my head, but that's about five times. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can you repeat that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I can. The residential option is 828 daily trips above what's generated from the site today. The commercial option is 4,625 24-hour trips from what's already there March 1, 2021 Page 10 today. So that's about a five-times multiplier. Those are important facts that have never been shared with the residents in the area during the information that has been provided over these many months. Now, I will tell you that the planner for the opponents testified in front of the Planning Commission that in his opinion commercial's never going to happen. Candidly, he's wrong. You will -- we know commercial will happen if the property is not rezoned as we're proposing. When Brian initially acquired the property, this is what the area looked like. You can see DaRuMa's with the blue roof. You can see -- I'm going to try to be Bob Mulhere here for a second. This is DaRuMa's right here. This building right here was a residential building. You could reach out from Barefoot Pelican and touch that building. That building has been removed already. This is another residential building. That one's gone. These buildings right here are gone. This building is gone, and this building is scheduled to go in May. So we've already done a lot to clean up the site from what was there originally. I think we can all agree it's not the prettiest piece of property in North Naples, and it will become, in my opinion, one of the prettiest properties in North Naples if the One Naples project is approved as we're going to modify it. A little bit about the history of acquiring the property. Initially, when Brian bought property -- and he'll go into this in a little bit greater detail -- it was the red area with a lot of holes in the doughnut, if you will. He's assembled all of the property, as you can see it here, including most recently he has gotten DaRuMa's under contract. So you can see that this property, now that it's been fully assembled, is a perfect location for either the residential alternative or the commercial alternative. And we will show you a commercial alternative that does not rely upon the vacation of any of these roads. March 1, 2021 Page 11 So commercial will be successful whether the vacation petition is approved or not approved later on today, and it will be a destination commercial location with restaurants and other attractors to the beach. And we have a plan that will include 575 parking spaces for a commercial development that includes six restaurants that requires 508 spaces. So we can easily accommodate the required parking for a very nice entertainment type of use on this property to attract people to the water and to the beach as amenities for that commercial development. These are some existing photos of what exists today on the site. I'm sure many of you can recognize where the Beach Box is, where the convenience store is, and the other uses that currently exist on the property. I want to go over a couple of the nearby neighbors and the density associated with each of those projects. Barefoot Pelican are these two buildings right there; their density is 45.8 units per acre. The Vanderbilt Palms is right there; that density is 52.83 units per acre. Vanderbilt Hideaway is right there; its density is 53.6 units per acre. Beachmoor is right here; it is a 10 -story over two-story building; its density is 18.53 units per acre. And Regatta are all of those buildings right there, and Regatta is approved at 23.44 units per acre. The overall average density for all of those projects is 38.84 units per acre. This is where we believe the misinformation -- there was a lot of misinformation presented by Save Vanderbilt Beach regarding the project, and we need to -- we need to clarify that information so the Planning Commission [sic] truly understands what we're proposing versus what has been represented to the community of what we're proposing. As you can see from the rendering on the left, that's Save Vanderbilt Beach's rendering. They had an 18-story building with March 1, 2021 Page 12 no landscaping, no water even in the pool. It was -- it was -- candidly, I would have voted no based on the representation of the information by Save Vanderbilt Beach. It was 18 stories over two of parking. Our actually -- I'm sorry, it was 18 stories. Our actual initial request was 16 stories, not 18, and we provided these renderings prior to their preparing their own renderings. And how do I know that? Their planner testified under oath at the Planning Commission that he had our renderings when he prepared his renderings for the information that was provided to the neighborhood. Their traffic consultant and their planner never analyzed the commercial option that could be on that property. They never presented that information to the community. They went forward with -- and I'll show you a few of the renderings, and then we'll go into -- we even have their most recent TV ad to show you that they're still not providing accurate representation of our project. You can see they don't even show the water feature that's going to be on the road and the public art that's going to be on the road, the landscaping that is going to be in front of the parking podium. They don't even -- you know, it's clearly not a true and accurate representation of what we're proposing. This is the view that they presented to the community as you're looking towards the water. Theirs is on the left. The real picture is on the right. They chose to tell people the picture on the left is what's going to happen. Now, they were clever, because they're going to say, well, theirs are really -- theirs are just massing representations. Now, we all know that landscaping and other improvements impact the visual impact and massing of a structure. So they tried to cover the fact that they didn't do an accurate representation by saying it's really only intended to show massing. March 1, 2021 Page 13 Most recently they went out with a survey. I think what they really did was a push-pull. They wanted a result, and they generated questions to get a result. You can see what I've highlighted. They say developers, in order to increase their profits, are consistently asking County Commissioners to amend the GMP to allow for greater density, more intrusive and less neighborhood-compatible projects and designs that run roughshod over requirements for limited heights, setbacks, open space, and other community protections. That is quite a lead-in to the questions that they want you to positively answer. They also, in the red, include inaccurate statements about what the current zoning actually allows. They say zoning requires 50 feet in maximum building height, and then they set forth the numbers that they claim we're going to build. The 50 feet they're referring to is zoned height. That is not the actual height that's in the C -3 zoning district because, remember, zoned height starts at the minimum flood elevation that you have to get to. So, basically, the first 21 feet doesn't count, because we've got to get to 21 feet to be the minimum flood elevation. You put the 50 feet on top of that, and then you have your roof. So the bottom line is for the mid-rises, the existing zoning for C-3 is 50 feet. We've asked for 55 feet. We asked for a five -foot increase over what could exist today, and that's based upon ceiling heights for current residential units. But if you were to read the statements, you would think that we are well over what the C-3 zoning allows. Then they go and they tell you that the zoning for the setbacks is 50 percent of the building height. They, again, misuse what the setbacks are. Setbacks are based upon the zoned building height, not actual building height. So a 50-foot-tall building would require a setback of 25 feet. They have totally different numbers there based March 1, 2021 Page 14 upon actual height. Incorrect information being provided by the person seeking an answer on the poll. Then they say zoning requires 30 percent open space, and the developer's open-space fulfillment is misleading because it includes the exclusive resident amenities such as a swimming pool and cabanas. One, we're not asking for any deviations from the measurement of open space in your Land Development Code. We are doing it correctly for the residential option. But what they don't tell you is, if it was developed as C-3, because the project will be under five acres, the open-space requirement is zero. They don't tell the neighbors any of that information. They don't provide any information about the existing C-3 development potential at all. So, not surprisingly, they have a survey that says people -- you should not approve this project based upon incorrect information. Now, we took the survey, and we answered all the questions, and we strongly agree that quality of life in Collier County is important. We agree that smart growth in Collier County is important. We believe beach availability is important. We believe every one of these answers is very important, and we strongly agree with every one of those statements, except for we don't agree that the developers should be able to amend the Growth Management Plan for their benefits in all situations. We think it depends, and it depends on the project. And we believe at the end, when you look at what we're proposing to do to change this Comp Plan designation and the zoning, that the One Naples project is the best option for the nearby residents in this area. So we're going to take the survey again at the end when you hear all of the facts. Now -- well, this is where I seem to be stuck. It's not moving, Troy. MR. MILLER: Hold on a minute, Rich. March 1, 2021 Page 15 MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. This is the ad that is being run. MR. MILLER: Rich, I don't think the audio's on. Let me take over, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: You've got it. Please drive. (A video was played as follows:) "Development threatens to destroy what we love most about our community. You have a chance to stop it. "Commissioners have repeatedly voted to allow developers to build too tall, too dense, too big, just too much. Don't let commissioners make us into a Miami West. "We're fighting the One Naples development at Vanderbilt Beach. Thousands of our neighbors have voiced their opposition. Now we need thousands more throughout the county to do the same, or your neighborhood may be next. "Let's work together. We are SaveVanderbiltBeach.com." MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, these ads have been running over the last several days, and they still have a misrepresentation of the actual project as we're proposing it. Troy, can I -- MR. MILLER: Yeah, you should be good. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thanks. So what's our bottom line? What can we -- what can we agree to? Well, the Miralia PUD, which is Regatta, which I showed you Regatta, which is immediately to our east, was approved in 1996, and we think that a project similar to Regatta is appropriate for this piece of property. Now, just from a history standpoint, the Miralia PUD was also C-3. We are C-3 property. And when you look at the C-3 development -- or the Regatta PUD, you will see that the Board made the finding that the development standards in this -- in the Regatta March 1, 2021 Page 16 project are far superior than the existing C-3. So we were approved at a density of 210 multifamily dwelling units for an average density -- or for a density of 23.44. We're proposing 140 multifamily dwelling units at 22.58 dwelling units per acre. Regatta was approved with a 25-foot setback from Vanderbilt Beach. Now, that was 25 feet straight up, not stair-stepping back the building; 25 feet straight up in the Regatta PUD. We're proposing 25 feet to the parking deck, which is 30 feet with a clear railing above that, and then stair back the buildings to be no closer than 35 feet from Vanderbilt Drive and Gulf Shore because, if you'll recall, we actually curved the buildings. The nearest point is 35 feet. It gets further away when you look at what's on the podium. They have been approved at a height of 10 residential floors over two of parking. We are requesting 10 residential floors over two of parking. Their zoned height is 120 feet four inches. We're asking for 129 feet. The differences in the height pertain to -- we were requested to provide retail -- retail services to the community. In order to build that retail, our first level of parking has to get to the minimum flood elevation, so the retail could be at our second-level parking deck, so that adds four or five feet to the building height, and it also adds -- we're looking at more current ceiling-height standards for the units. So that gets us to 129 feet of actual zoned height. And then from an actual height standpoint, Regatta, their towers were constructed at 148 feet, and we're asking for 165 feet. As I said earlier, we have -- we now have the DaRuMa property under contract. It's about .78 acres. So the overall project size goes from 5.42 to 6.2. Is that the right math? Yes. So it's 6.2, and that density number I gave you is based upon the .78 acres of DaRuMa, because we've agreed on the DaRuMa piece there will be no March 1, 2021 Page 17 commercial development, and there will be no residential development as part of the approval of this project. We've also agreed -- and I'll show you the condition if the project doesn't go forward, if we don't buy DaRuMa. So we have to buy DaRuMa, and we have to put DaRuMa into basically an amenity of limited uses on the property before we can even go vertical, a nd we have no project without buying DaRuMa. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The density that you represented is on the original acreage, not including the DaRuMa's? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I want to make that clear. It does include -- since we're putting the .78 acres of DaRuMa and prohibiting any development, that's how I come to the 22.5 -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what I wanted. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- units per acre. I want to make sure that that's clear. What we've also agreed to, as I just previously said, we will have a 25-foot setback for the parking structure. We will have a minimum of 35 feet for the closest point on the buildings, and that's to this point right here and this point right here. Those difference -- those distances change. That's 97 feet right there, and 54 feet to right there. So it's not a wall of a 35-foot building fronting on Vanderbilt Drive or Gulf Shore. Now, we've also included what is the real distance from the travel lane, because people forget that the setback or property line isn't the same thing as the road. So when you look -- you look at those numbers, the numbers change to 50-foot setback from the travel lane on that portion of the property and 44 feet from the travel lane along Gulf Shore Drive. March 1, 2021 Page 18 We've agreed, for this mid-rise building also, to bring it back to the 25-foot setback. So you will have a 25-foot setback from Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Now, I'm kind of a visual person. So what we see -- you-all -- this is a shot from our property. But you have the Ritz in the background, and you have the county's parking garage in the front. We will do a better job of landscaping than what the county's parking garage shows, but you can see that even with the county's landscaping there, you don't see the county's parking garage, and you will not see our parking structure, because it will be densely landscaped, and there will be -- the walls will be green with vines so that, if for some reason there's a small space in the trees and the cover, you will see green as part of our proposed development. I wanted to put on here -- I spoke to this earlier about the Regatta. This is the Regatta height exhibit. They're 10 residential floors over two of parking. There are 140 units in those two buildings. We are 10 stories over two of parking. We have put, as you can see in the -- it looks purple to me. That's where the -- our commercial uses that are going to be open to the public are going to be there. They're going to be on that second level of the parking, and that's why we had to go -- that's why our height differences are slightly different than Regatta, because we have to get the business uses above flood elevation. So we're 10 over two, just like Regatta, and our building heights are more in keeping with what high -end luxury condominiums are expecting in today's market. So I want to take you through where we started and what I've -- what our bottom line is. And we've done this from the five different angles that we showed at the Planning Commission. So bear with me. You're obviously looking north to south. This is the 16 stories over two of parking, that's the 14 over two that the Planning Commission initially heard, this is the 12 over two that the March 1, 2021 Page 19 Planning Commission tied on, and that's the 10 over two that's proposed for you today. Now, going from the water looking to northeast, that's the 16 over two, 14 over two, 12 over two, 10 over two from tha t angle. Looking at it from the water south. I guess it would be southeast. Sixteen over two, 14 over two; 12 over two, 10 over two. From Pelican Bay north to west, 16 over two, 14 over two, 12 over two, 10 over two. Finally, looking west over the Trieste, which is the building closest to us and Regatta, is the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, 16 over two, 14 over two, 12 over two, 10 over two. So from all angles you can see that our proposed project fits in nicely with the community in scale of height and massing for what's already around us. I want to take you through some of the proposed landscaping photographs to see what's there today versus what we're proposing to do. This is -- this is on South Bay facing west, so you're near Barefoot Pelican. This is on Vanderbilt Beach Road facing the beach. This is Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore. Beach Box on the existing. What we're proposing. This is the -- this is the commercial corner, if you will, of our project. That's where the real estate office will be. That's what's there today versus what we're proposing. And this is South Bay Drive and Gulf Shore Court facing west. And that's the corner. What's there today on the left. What we're proposing on the right for development on that corner. This is -- this is just an envelope to show you what commercial can occur on the site. This varies in height from two to three stories. The center. This would be our parking garage. Surface parking, surface parking, surface parking, and then we would have our commercial buildings as part of the project, and that includes retail, March 1, 2021 Page 20 office, and restaurant space. The required parking is 508 parking spaces, and we are providing 575 parking spaces. We kept it at 100,000 square feet, even though we can fit more, because that's what we represented at the Planning Commission, and we wanted to keep up with those numbers that have already been calculated. Both Dan O'Berski, who's been around for a while doing commercial development in Collier County, and David Stevens, who's been around for an even longer time in Collier County doing commercial development, have both looked at this project, and we said, give us an honest opinion. Can you find either a developer or can you lease it up, and they both said they could find developers and that they could both lease it up based upon many of their existing clients already. I've asked them to come back. They're having coffee at Starbucks. If you want to talk to them, let me know, we'll bring them over. But they both have significant experience in Collier County and stand by the conclusion that commercial development is, in fact, a viable option on this property. With that, I want to turn it over to Bob Mulhere to take you through the planning aspects of our project. He'll be followed by Jim Banks and then Brian, and I'll come up and give a brief conclusion. I don't know how you want to do questions and answers. Do you want us to finish our entire presentation? Or I'm happy to answer questions now. I leave it to the discretion of the Board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think we've shown that we will ask questions when we need to, so... COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can you go back to the -- where March 1, 2021 Page 21 you showed the parking garage for the commercial option. What's the -- what would the setback be between that and the existing condominium building there? What's the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that says 25 feet. You mean from the property line, Commissioner, right there? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That's about 25 feet. Right? Yes, 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, I failed to mention, and I'll mention it again later, that you've gotten several letters of support recently, and that includes Vanderbilt Palms, Barefoot Pelican, and I want to -- I keep -- Buzz's, not -- the other Buzz's -- Buzz's Lighthouse. So I'll show you an exhibit a little bit later. But we have support from our immediate neighbors for the residential option versus the commercial option. Any other questions before I turn it over to Bob? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: While that's going on, one more question in relation to what I asked before. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I don't know if Bob Mulhere can answer that or not. About the 25-foot setback that was depicted there is based upon what? MR. MULHERE: That would be based on building height and C-3 requirements. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Building height and C-3 requirements. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, because -- yeah, as Rich indicated, the March 1, 2021 Page 22 zoned height being 50 feet, you're required to do 50 percent of the building height -- zoned building height, so 25 feet. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here this morning on behalf of the applicant. I'll try to follow Jim Mudd's immortal words and be brief, because I'm really her e to speak to the issue of compatibility, which was a very significant issue discussed quite a bit at the Planning Commission. As you -- as you have previously seen, you know the subject property is zoned C-3 and -- excuse me. So this whole portion here is all zoned C-3. This is what Policy 5.6 says. It's a relatively short sentence, so I'd like to read it. New developments shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. So two words used, "compatible with" and "complementary to." You have a definition of compatibility in your LDC. That reads: A condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition unduly negatively impacts directly or indirectly or is impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. Again, very, very clear. You do not have a definition of complementary specifically in your LDC; however, looking at Merriam-Webster, complementary is generally defined as going well together or working well together, at least in the context of the meaning in your policy. Compatible is defined as capable of existing together in harmony. That's very, very close to what it says in your policy, 5.6. Able to exist together without trouble or conflict. Let's just briefly go back to that. Your definition of compatibility, a condition which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such March 1, 2021 Page 23 that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. So if we look just at the density and intensity as it relates to the surrounding properties, we are proposing 140 units on 6.2 acres at 22.58 units per acre, and you can see that the other uses around us are all of greater intensity, some of them significantly greater intensity. But the Regatta is at 25.44. It's also 10 over two. So if you look at that -- and Beachmoor is 10 over two; a little bit less density. If you look at that, those are all residential uses. How do you start this, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Troy? Hit the space bar. MR. MULHERE: Space. Okay. I'll let you start it, Troy. This is just a brief video showing the surrounding -- you can see the Ritz and the county parking garage. And as we move in a circular, 360-degree movement, you see the Regatta, DaRuMa, our adjacent condominiums, and now we're swinging back to ultimately look west, Beachmoor, and back to the subject property. So a picture being worth a thousand words, it's obvious that the proposed use is very compatible with everything that's surrounding our parcel. Rich showed this site plan for commercial. And, again, we're talking about being able to park, meet all setbacks, ask for no vacations, and provide 100,000 square feet. As you know, these parcels are on the water and would lend themselves to waterfront dining. This would be retail, office, and commercial as well as right here, and the heights vary two to three stories. The buildings will be in the neighborhood of 71 feet tall from the existing street level. So looking at this perspective which shows the project at the proposed 10 over two -- and it's clear. You can see. Look for yourself. Is that not compatible? In my opinion, it is very March 1, 2021 Page 24 compatible and much less impacting on the other option on the neighborhood. You just have to look for yourself. You can see what the neighborhood looks like. And, finally, this is a colorized site plan that shows the DaRuMa parcel, which is now under contract, which would be limited to amenity-type uses, passive recreation, green space, and which, per an agreement that we are willing to enter into, will never be residential or commercial. So in conclusion, in my professional opinion as a certified planner, the residential option is far more compatible with the neighborhood: Less traffic, less intrusion, less noise, less odors. It seems obvious to me. Thank you. MR. BANKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Jim Banks. My firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for One Naples. The Traffic Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to the criteria set forth by Collier County Government as well as the methodologies that were established with your staff and the county's third-party transportation consultant, Jacobs Engineering. Both your staff and Jacobs Engineering reviewed the Traffic Impact study, and they agreed with the findings and conclusions of that report as well as the recommendations regarding transportation improvements that we propose to be implemented down there to improve traffic flow along Vanderbilt Beach Road. The scope of the traffic study included a link-specific concurrency review, also a corridor operational -- I'm sorry. The link-specific concurrency review was both Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive. We also included a corridor operational analysis of Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is a more detailed analysis of the operation of the corridor, and we also evaluated the operations of the beach parking March 1, 2021 Page 25 structure. Now, the first task at hand is always to quantify the amount of traffic the project is going to generate, and in this case One Naples is predominantly a residential product, which will generate predominantly residential traffic. Now, that traffic will be compatible and consistent with the type of traffic that's generated by the nearby residential areas. Now, if the site is developed with 100,000 square feet of commercial, which would include restaurants and retail shops, then that will be bringing traffic into the area from outside of the Vanderbilt Beach corridor; in other words, it will attract trips east of 41 into that area. So it would be bringing traffic into the area. Now, as a good example of a situation where you have these restaurants and specialty shops grouped together is a Shops at Venetian Bay. I'm sure everyone in this room has been there before and understand how they attract traffic from areas outside that immediate area. And so -- and also the -- Tin City is another good example of a situation where you have this cluster of restaurants and retail shops. They take a life of their own. They become an entertainment destination location. And in this situation we're going to have commercial and restaurants on the bay and within walking distance of the beach. So that will play off those amenities and in itself will become an attractive center for entertainment. We've been to these locations. We know how the tourists and the visitors from up north and even the residents enjoy going to these type of commercial centers that are on the water. Now, we did analyze the -- or estimate the volume of traffic that will be generated by the One Naples. And as Rich Yovanovich mentioned, One Naples will generate 45 net new trips from this site. So what you're going to realize is there's only going to be an increase March 1, 2021 Page 26 of 45 net new trips on Vanderbilt Beach Road because we're going to remove the amount of traffic that's generated by DaRuMa's, we're going to remove the amount of traffic that's generated by Beach Box and some of the other uses that exist there today. Now, if we develop the site with the commercial uses, the net new volume of trips will be -- if we develop 100,000 square feet of restaurants and specialty shops, will generate 404 net new trips on Vanderbilt Beach Road. That is nine times the volume of traffic that would be generated by the One Naples project. That means its impacts are going to be nine times greater than the One Naples project. Plus, it's traffic that's being brought into the area from east of 41. Now, this gives you -- this graphic gives you an example of, if we didn't -- if we don't -- if the site's not developed with 100,000 square feet and we only 75,000 square feet, it will still generate 299 net new trips, which is still substantially greater than the One Naples product. If 50,000 square feet's developed, it will generate four times the amount of traffic that One Naples will generate. This exhibit shows you the intersections that we analyzed as part of the operational evaluation of Vanderbilt Beach Road, which we'll get into in just a minute. The corridor operation evaluation, it was actually conducted at the direction of your staff and your third-party transportation consultant, Jacobs Engineering. We met with your staff. They outlined the scope of work. They wanted us to collect data for seven days during peak season conditions, which we did, and they also made it clear that -- for us to identify what inefficiencies exist there today that cause congestion, and then develop improvements; reasonable, practical, feasible improvements that can be implemented to help remedy the situation down there. And there were -- all options were on the table. We were told March 1, 2021 Page 27 to consider roundabouts, pedestrian walkovers, pedestrian mid blocks, look at improving sidewalks, bike lanes. Anything that we could identify that could be feasibly achievable, what could we implement down there that would improve the overall situation at the corridor. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Banks, excuse me. Just a question. What do you mean by feasibly attainable? What are the parameters? MR. BANKS: We're not going to do an interchange, we know that, so that's not feasible. Something that would require right-of-way from other folks, that may not be obtainable. In other words, where you'd have to condemn property and rights of other people; that's not feasible. So traffic signals, roundabouts. Even a roundabout would require some right-of-way acquisition. Pedestrian walkovers, mid blocks, that's all feasible, achievable improvements. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. MR. BANKS: In addition to that, they also asked us to look at the operational conditions of the beach parking structure and try and identify what improvements could be made there as well to help with the congestion. And so what we found -- well, let me back up. So we did seven days of traffic data collection. We did this by videotaping the corridor, and we collected the volume of traffic generated, volume of pedestrians, and the volume of bicycles, plus we performed several days of field observations during the month of January and February, and I also met with -- actually sat at the parking structure and worked with the attendants and seen how that operates. And so what we did, after we collected all the data and the field observations, we identified what are the two leading causes of congestion down there that occurs during peak season and most often on the weekends. And, surprisingly, it's not the volume of traffic. March 1, 2021 Page 28 It's the volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic that is walking across the intersection at Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. In a one-hour period, there were over 400 people or bicyclists that crossed that intersection. So these pedestrians and these bicyclists are consuming the vast majority of this intersection's capacity and causing delay to traffic. And these people aren't -- the pedestrians aren't crossing in groups of five and 10 at a time. They're one and two and groups of three. They're carrying coolers and beach chairs and umbrellas, and they're not crossing the intersection in an efficient manner. And at times there will be one person that will -- as they're exiting the crosswalk, the next person steps on the crosswalk. And so the traffic must stay stopped until those people clear. And at times -- there's periods of over minutes at a time where there's just pedestrians that are going through this intersection, and so the traffic starts to queue up, and it backs up all the way past Vanderbilt Drive. And then the second leading cause of the congestion down there is the way that the parking structure operates. Currently, it's a pay-as-you-enter system. So that means people -- I've sat down there and watched with the attendants. They pull up. Some of them ask how much it is to get in the garage, and then they start digging around in their pockets or their purses or whatever trying to find the correct amount of change. They ask what the temperature of the water is and if it's good for swimming that day and various other things. And so this inefficiency about getting people into the parking structure and paying to park is causing traffic to back out on Vanderbilt Beach Road. And at times that traffic extends -- there is an existing left-turn lane that goes into the parking structure. But at times as traffic backs up, it extends past that left-turn lane, and at times it extends all the way back to Vanderbilt Beach Drive [sic], and March 1, 2021 Page 29 that occurs -- when the parking structure reaches capacity, there's no more available parking spaces, the attendants close the parkin g structure, and they wait until 30 spaces become available or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first; that's when they open the parking structure again. And so there's times when the parking structure is closed for 30 minutes, and the people will -- motorists will sit in their cars in the road waiting for the parking structure to open back up, and that queue extends well past Vanderbilt Drive. So, you know, those are the two leading causes, pedestrian volume at that intersection and the way the beach structure operates. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Jim, just one quick question. MR. BANKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What is the queue for stacking into the parking garage currently? MR. BANKS: Four to five vehicles. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. MR. BANKS: So what we did is once we had all this data and this information, we went back to your staff and Jacobs Engineering, laid all the cards out on the table, we did some -- we did some pre-analysis before we met back with your staff. I just want you to know we didn't go off into a dark room and work for six months and come back and tell your staff, "this is it." We worked with your staff hand in hand. They would give us a lot of feedback on the direction they wanted us to proceed, and we discounted -- roundabouts won't work. I'm not going to get into why, but they won't. The pedestrian crossings, the mid block, we basically eliminated various options, and then we were -- then we concluded that by installing a traffic signal at that intersection at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt, you're going to -- what you accomplish by doing that is you're queuing up the pedestrians just like you queue up vehicles. And this is common practice in March 1, 2021 Page 30 traffic engineering where you have high-volume intersections is to install traffic signals. For one thing it makes it a lot safer for the pedestrians, because then they get their own dedicated phase. There's not this question of whether or not I'm getting ready to step in the crosswalk, is this guy going to stop for me or not? You know, you get that little situation sometimes where you're not sure if the guy understands, in the state of Florida, you put your foot in the crosswalk, you're supposed to stop. So it gives the pedestrians their own cycle, their own green light to cross the intersection, and then we stop the pedestrians and start queuing them up, and then we run the cycles for the motorists. And so by doing so, you're dedicating a lot more of that intersection's time to accommodating the motorist, which is not the case today, and we are queuing up the pedestrians and having them cross in groups. So that -- that, along with we're going to install a westbound to right northbound right-turn lane there. With that -- by implementing those improvements along with sidewalks and bike lanes, we reduce the delay on Vanderbilt Beach Road by 76 percent. The backup queue is 76 percent reduced by simply putting that traffic signal and that right turn and those other improvements I just mentioned. The delay on Gulf Shore Drive is reduced by 60 percent. And I'm going to show you a simulation here in just a minute that gives you the visual of that condition. Also, as far as the parking structure, we're going to extend that left-turn lane. We're going to double its queuing capacity. Hopefully we'll be able to store up to eight to 10 vehicles by extending that left-turn lane. We met with your staff on the parking garage. We proposed to install an automated -- or at least fund the installation of an automation system for the parking that informs motorists about the March 1, 2021 Page 31 available parking spots or not, also do a park-and-then-pay situation or a park-as-you-leave so we don't have this situation where people are pulling up and we're queuing them out in the road simply because they can't get in the garage. We're going to get them off the street, get them in the garage, and then have them pay, either after they park or as they leave. So that alone is going to make a huge difference. And then we're also proposing to install variable message signs along Vanderbilt Beach Road prior to getting to the structure so people know there's 20 available spaces or there's no available spaces. That way they can make the decision to go to a different beach or different parking area. Real quickly -- I know I'm over my time, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not. MR. BANKS: Okay. Currently there's four points of conflict or four intersections on Vanderbilt Beach Road between Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive. There's four points of conflict. So we're going to eliminate some of those access points and realign the main entrance into One Naples. We're going to line that up with the parking structure. So we're going to go from four points of conflict on that short segment of road down to one point of conflict. Now, that's just good access-management planning. And we met with your staff. We proposed that to your staff. They agreed that's the preferred design to minimize the number of access points to Vanderbilt Beach Road and to be aligned wit h the parking structure versus having an offset intersection and have two points of conflict. Now, with that said, I do want you to realize that the One Naples project and the residents that live along South Bay will have three points of access onto the adjacent road network. So there's not -- it's not a single point of access onto Vanderbilt or Gulf Shore. There are options for these residents to choose what access is most convenient March 1, 2021 Page 32 for them. In summary, and then we'll do the visual presentation real quick. Again, both your staff and Jacobs Engineering, very involved in this entire process we went through, agree with the reports, findings, and conclusions, and they agreed with the recommended improvements, and by approving this application, One Naple s will generate substantially fewer trips than what would be generated by the commercial use. As we spoke, the commercial will generate nine times the amount of traffic, and it will bring traffic into the area east of 41. We also satisfy your adopted criteria on the link-specific concurrency evaluation. We determined that both Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive will operate at acceptable levels of service based upon your AUIR report's criteria. Also, by approving this project, we will be installing the traffic signal in the right-turn lane, as well as augmenting the sidewalks and the pedestrian -- the sidewalks and the bike lanes along Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as along South Bay, and we will realize a 76 percent improvement in traffic flow along Vanderbilt Beach Road and, based on our modeling, it went from an average six-mile-per-hour speed, the travel speed along Vanderbilt Beach Road, to a 15-mile per hour average travel speed. So a substantial improvement. And, actually, we really don't want people driving much faster than 15 miles per hour when we have a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists in that area. So I think that's the sweet spot we really want to be at. People feel like they're making progress and they're moving a fairly decent rate of speed along a corridor that they share with pedestrians and bicyclists. And by implementing the beach parking improvements, we know we're going to gain some real efficiencies there and reduce the March 1, 2021 Page 33 amount of recurring congestion that's caused by that parking structure. This is -- I'm getting ready to show you a simulation of the -- of the way the corridor looks today and what it's going to be like in the future. Ted Treesh is here with me today. He's out in the hall. His firm specializes in running these traffic flow models. His firm runs them for -- conducts these type of models for governmental agencies so they can improve their signal times and that type of thing. I don't know what all that noise is from. But I guess to animate, we've got the noise of the cars. But anyhow -- now, this is not traveling at real speed. It's a little faster than what real speed -- real speed is out there. But as you can see, this model reflects that volume of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that's why those vehicles are stopping there to make that right turn. That is their primary point of conflict on making that right turn are the peds, not traffic volumes. And so they'll begin to queue up, and it compounds over time, and eventually the queue extends past Vanderbilt Drive simply just to make that right turn. Now, I'm going to -- I do want to make one thing noted on the record. Because the way the beach -- the parking structure operates where they close it, it's a -- it's intermittent, we never know when they're going to close it and when it's going to be reopened, we weren't really able to model how the parking structure causes congestion out on the road. So this simulation does not show those periods of when the beach parking is closed and vehicles are actually stopped on Vanderbilt Beach Road. So I do want to make that clear. This simply shows the congestion caused by the pedestrians crossing at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt Beach Road. And, again, you can see the queue is quite significant. This is the same traffic that we -- the model that -- the March 1, 2021 Page 34 simulation I showed before was based on that seven days' collection, and we were actually modeling the worst hour of the day. By simply installing the traffic signal at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt and queuing up those pedestrians and treating them like traffic versus the three-way stop situation where they have the ultimate right-of-way no matter what, you can see what happens is occasionally you queue up a few vehicles, but then they get their own green light, we stop the pedestrians, and then they're able to make that right turn. And so you don't have that domino effect that keeps adding to itself throughout the day and keeps building and building and building. We're constantly processing that westbound-to-northbound right turn movement. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have a question. MR. BANKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So the traffic numbers that you have, you kept -- I just want to get some clarification here. You've said multiple times, and so did Mr. Yovanovich, the difference between residential and commercial. But in reality, if One Naples was built, it's really mixed use. It's residential, it's commercial, it's restaurants, it's all that. So do the numbers take into account that, okay, they don't just count the 172 units, correct? MR. BANKS: Right. It's the commercial, which we're only talking about 10,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MR. BANKS: DaRuMa's and Beach Box, they're offsetting our commercial numbers, clearly, but -- and our predominant amount of traffic that is generated from the site is residential in nature. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MR. BANKS: But there is some commercial traffic. March 1, 2021 Page 35 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But it includes those six restaurants and all that? Yeah, okay. When you talked about the intersection at Gulf Shore at Vanderbilt and the, you know, motion traffic that you just showed here, so are you proposing to put a light at that intersection -- MR. BANKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- to control them? MR. BANKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Had you ever talked to -- and this isn't directive at all. I'm just, you know -- I'm just spit-balling here a little bit. Was there ever any talk of some overpass or a bridge or anything? There was? And the light was the thing that you settled on as being, you know, more -- a more positive -- MR. BANKS: We looked at everything at that location; the overpass, the mid-block pedestrian signals, we looked at roundabouts, we looked at all of them, and for various reasons, they don't work. The most efficient way to accommodate the traffic at this location is with the traffic signal, and that is the information that we presented to your staff, and they agreed with that. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a couple quick questions in terms of the actual construction if this is approved. How would construction traffic be handled, and what kind of an impact would that have on the overall traffic patterns there -- MR. BANKS: Well, construction -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and for how long? MR. BANKS: Yeah, construction traffic is construction traffic. It's temporary in nature, and I think we're talking four- to five-year window, something to that effect. But, yes, we're going to have construction traffic and -- March 1, 2021 Page 36 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Will there be a designated construction entrance, and how will that be controlled? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, commissioner, I'm assuming we'll have to look at either doing something temporary on our property to keep -- we have to look at South Bay and all that. But we anticipate that we'll stage -- I know you can't see my finger. We own these -- we'll own all of this. So we'll stage here first before we do the corner, but we will work through what's the appropriate construction traffic to not impact our neighbors, being Barefoot Pelican and Vanderbilt Palms. But we've got a staging area for us to be able to put all of our workers there, and if not we'll put them off site and we'll bring them in. Was that your question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I just wanted to make sure that -- I wanted to have an understanding of how traffic would be handled with the -- during the construction period. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And maybe -- I don't know if you can -- this might be -- MR. BANKS: My traffic assistant is here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well, I just need specific -- one of the issues that comes along wherever there's an adjustment -- and this project isn't approved or not -- but a major issue is the traffic. When -- if you were approved, when will the light be installed? MR. YOVANOVICH: We require -- I've got to look back. I think it's before that. Commissioner, let me -- if you'll give me a minute, I need to -- I don't want to misspeak. Give me a second. I have that in my presentation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did you say that earlier or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't. I didn't get to the final, but it's before we go vertical. It's before we even start going vertical. March 1, 2021 Page 37 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all I needed to hear. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. BANKS: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can ask your indulgence. I know you want to stop at 10:30. So if you don't mind, can we stop now so Brian doesn't get interrupted in his presentation, and then we can hopefully finish Brian and myself right after your break and then be up for questions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One quick question before we break. Going back to the commercial site plan that you showed, can you clarify for me again what the -- what the setbacks were from both Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt. MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your -- the required setback for Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore under the C-3 option would be 25 feet or one-half the sum of the building height, zoned height, whichever is greater. So since 50 feet is the maximum zoned height, it will be 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's based -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not the actual building height, but that's based upon the zoned building height -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Building height. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and that's the current C-3. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what's allowed? MR. YOVANOVICH: By right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I do -- I don't know if staff in their presentation is going to show them their traffic consultant's model, March 1, 2021 Page 38 but they did actually put on -- at the Planning Commission, they had their own traffic consultant do a trip generation model as well. I don't mean to steal their thunder, but it was basically exactly like Mr. Banks' traffic model. So I don't know if they're showing it or not. I haven't talked to them about their presentation, but I just wanted to note that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we -- Mr. Yovanovich, are we okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're fine. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I think now we'll take a break. We'll make it, Terri, what do you need, 10 minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Ten. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ten minutes. We'll be back at 10:30, thank you. (A brief recess was had from 10:20 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) MR. MILLER: You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And -- well, it was a little faster than most folks expect. We're waiting for Mr. Yovanovich to come back in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Going the wrong way. I apologize. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that's quite all right. Mr. Stock, I think you have the floor. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I'm trying to -- Troy, am I going too fast? MR. MILLER: No. MR. STOCK: Hello, Commissioners. Brian Stock from Stock Development, for the record. I would like to discuss our company's vision of the property from the beginning. When the property went for sale for a reques t for proposal, we had immediate interest. This request for proposal meant that the property that had sat there for a long, long time was March 1, 2021 Page 39 about to be sold and soon be developed. I felt that from the beginning it was a perfect opportunity for our company to take the property and make it substantially more aesthetically appealing than it was in its existing condition. Now that the piece is about to be developed, I felt that as a local Naples-based developer, we wanted the opportunity to develop this highly visible corner that's in our backyard and make it a quality development that would be beautified with lush landscaping, water features, and art. Our vision and commitment has always been to make the property the best it could be and make it publicly accessible and appealing. In evaluating the property, we felt the property was irreplaceable. Geographically, the property is definitely an A location. Multiple acres in North Naples west of 71 [sic] with proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and internal water rarely exist. We knew the property with the existing C-3 zoning on it could be successfully developed. It is public record what we paid for it. We would have never purchased the property if we did not believe the property could be successfully developed with the C -3 commercial zoning. As we continue to study the property, we felt great about the location and having it with the existing zoning; however, we had to ask ourself if this was the best use of the property for our neighbors and the community. We asked ourself the same first two questions we do on any property. One, what is the property surrounded by? And, two, how does traffic affect the surrounding neighbors and the community? The answer to one is that the property is surrounded predominantly by residential property. We also knew the answer to two is that commercial property always generates more traffic than March 1, 2021 Page 40 residential property. Traffic is always the number-one concern by far and away of any project, and this project is no different. It was clear early on that this property was more compatible as residential development than the existing C-3 zoning. Since the acquisition, there were several buildings on the site that were not the most aesthetically pleasing. We have removed six buildings on the site that were not in the best condition. We have one more to remove that will come down shortly. Land acquisition. It was clear early on, as much as we felt good about the site, it was not an easy site to develop at time of closing. There were many pieces missing that bifurcated the site that made it noncontiguous. We knew that as many parcels as we could acquire would only make the property more contiguous and easier to develop under either residential or commercial use. The seven acquisitions happened within the first two years after acquiring the main portion of the property. We had tried to acquire DaRuMa for years. We offered to build them a restaurant in our project with covered parking at the end cap coming down Vanderbilt with the appropriate signage. They ended up not being interested. A purchase was also explored, however, did not work out at that time. So we then proceeded with our site plan around the DaRuMa site. Neighborhood outreach. Our initial public presentation unveiling of our residential plan was on May 17th, 2017, at the Ritz. The project at that time considered [sic] of 18 floors of residential over 3 floors of parking, 300 units, and a portion of commercial. We were looking both north and south of the site at a much larger area geographically for compatibility. There are currently a multitude of buildings south and east of the Ritz comprising of 19 to 22 stories. Clearly, hearing the community's concer ns, we adjusted our plans in our zoning application to the county with 16 floors of residential over March 1, 2021 Page 41 two floors of parking, 240 units, and 25,000 square feet of commercial. Keith Gelder from Stock Development and myself then engaged in an extensive neighborhood outreach program. From our time of acquisition, between phone calls, individual meetings, group meetings, and mandatory NIM, we have well over a hundred lines of communication with the community. This slide shows almost 50 scheduled meetings typically lasting between an hour and an hour and a half with 11 different groups addressing their concerns. After these meetings, it was time for planning and zoning. We adjusted our plan to 14 floors over two floors of parking, 172 units, and 10,000 square feet of commercial. The vote at Planning and Zoning was split. However, it was clear, five of the six commissioners voiced their opinion that residential was a better use than commercial. Although we felt we had satisfied setbacks with staff at planning and zoning, we were still hearing concerns from the community. DaRuMa concept. We reengaged with DaRuMa to purchase their property recently, even though we felt that we already had a compatible plan. After many rounds of discussions, we were able to put DaRuMa under contract. Although we are paying a substantial over-market value, the acquisition gives us flexibility in our plan to make adjustments that will be beneficial to the property and the community regardless of the residential or commercial use. Here's a summary of the neighborhood outreach. Density. We've reduced the density of the project three times from the initial 300 to what we presented today at 140 residential units. It was 172 at planning and zoning. In comparison to the adjacent properties, One Naples has the lowest density at 22.58 acres versus Barefoot Pelican at 25.8, March 1, 2021 Page 42 Vanderbilt Palms at 52.8, and Regatta at 23.44. Height was reduced on the towers four times from the original concept of 21 to the current proposal of 10 stories over two stories of parking. In addition, we have reduced the zoned heights of the mid-rise buildings from 65 to 55. Existing zoning allows for 50. Massing of the buildings. We altered the design of One Naples from the initial concept which featured one large building to the new concept which features two smaller buildings. The new design breaks up the building massing and provides a minimum of 50 feet between the structures for improved exchange of air, sunlight, and view corridors. Compatibility. There's a total of nine towers of 20-plus stories within a half-a-mile radius of the project. The height of One Naples is less than that of the Ritz-Carlton across the street, which measures 215 feet. Traffic. The 100,000 square feet of C-3 commercial zoning alternative produces nine times the amount of net new p.m. peak-hour trips versus the One Naples residential project; 404 net p.m. peak-hour trips based on 100,000 square feet versus 45 p.m. peak-hour trips based on 140 residences and 10,000 square feet. All of the parking for the One Naples residents would be accommodated on site. The existing number of parallel parking spaces along Vanderbilt would remain the same. The neighborhood parking experience will be improved through technology upgrades of the county parking garage and additional parking garage signage. Community improvement. We will add enhanced landscape along Vanderbilt Beach, Gulf Shore Drive, South Bay Drive, including offsite properties, with new sidewalks to complete connectivity from the corner, new street lighting for public safety, and attractive public art. There will also be a new coffee shop/deli which will be open for the public to enjoy. March 1, 2021 Page 43 Transportation upgrades. As been mentioned, installation of the traffic signal at Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore, including a dedicated right-hand turn onto Gulf Shore Drive along with pedestrian crossing indicators. Extension of the left-turn lane into the county garage, also enhancing technology and signage upgrades to notify the public of parking availability. Sidewalks along the east side of Gulf Shore Drive adjacent to One Naples. An 8-foot-wide multi-use pathway along the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road from the terminus from the existing path of Gulf Shore Drive. The addition of 10-foot travel lanes, 4-foot bike lanes, and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of South Bay Drive. The road and pathways will be open to the public. Existing drainage. We will be installing a new underground drainage system including offsite areas to serve the project and the surrounding communities to better drain the water on South Bay Drive. Setbacks. We've increased the numerous setbacks from zero to 10 feet on South Bay Drive. Barefoot Pelican is 27-and-a-half feet versus the existing building nearby that we had tore down was right next door. This is half of the mid-rise zoned height. Vanderbilt Beach Road setback from the residents and Gulf Shore Drive has gone now from 15 to 25 feet. Building setbacks along both Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt Beach are now 35 feet, and Center Street building is from zero to 10. The marina -- the number of slips with One Naples project would be reduced under residential use to 75 slips. The C-3 commercial alternative will seek to permit up to 99 slips. The slips would be sold or leased under One Naples residents. I'll just walk you through the slides. At time, as far as the March 1, 2021 Page 44 visuals, just to show the landscape plan and understanding the concerns of the community with setbacks and landscaping and the visuals. We've already showed you from five different angles just the scope and scale and size and how our project fits in with the neighbors. This will give you a ground-floor view of what the project would look like positioned in on the piece of property with the surrounding landscaping. This is what the visual would be for the majority that are driving by, walking, or bicycle around the project. So this is the intersection at Vanderbilt Beach Road and South Bay facing north. This is at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach and South Bay facing west towards the beach. Intersection of Vanderbilt and South Bay Drive, again, facing west. Project entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road. Again, entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road. Project entrance at Vanderbilt Beach Road facing west. You can see all the dense landscaping that would be there in front of -- the parking garage would be vined and vegetated along with a multitude of layering of vegetation in front of it so you cannot see the parking structure. Here again, this is looking at the parking structure. It is -- again, the parking structure's vined, and then there's multi-layers of vegetation in front of it. This is the corner looking back at where the Beach Box is and looking north of Gulf Shore Drive. Here, again, same view north. Looking north. This is facing south coming back to the project. You can see the Ritz and the Remington in the background. This is internally on South Bay Drive facing east towards Barefoot Pelican. This would be the north entrance of the property coming south on Gulf Shore Court. There would be the entrance going into the project internally to the two 12-story buildings. South Bay and Gulf Shore Court face west looking back towards the beach. March 1, 2021 Page 45 South Bay Drive facing west. This is coming around the corner by Barefoot Pelican and Vanderbilt Palms facing back towards the Ritz. And then this is our project looking down. You can see -- based on the corner from the aerial, you can see what the buildings look like. The parking structures are hidden, and where the Beach Box is, is essentially we have a water feature a nd art on the corner. This is the final scale and scope of our project as proposed. As a company we have always prided ourself with doing the right thing and being a responsible developer and builder. From the beginning, we have heard the concerns that there was already too much traffic, it was too tall, too much mass, not enough setbacks, more beachgoers to an already overcrowded beach, more boat traffic and water quality, not enough open space, and not compatible to our neighbors. We always are extremely sensitive to our neighbors and the community's concerns. Through the process, I believe you can ask any of our opposition groups, and they will say that we have always been accessible, straightforward, and transparent. Traffic has been, like all projects, by far and away the biggest concern. It was the main focus on all the early calls with the 11 groups. Clearly, traffic dominated the conversation at all the voluntary and mandatory neighborhood information meetings. As the calls progressed and the density and commercial intensity was reduced and the C-3 zoning was understood, traffic was no longer the topic of conversation. The calls and meetings then switched to height, setbacks, open space, and compatibility. We committed to address the community's concerns. We modified height and density down multiple times, increased setbacks, made two smaller buildings instead of one larger building to address massing. Our project will abide by the Manatee Protection Plan and regulated by federal and local governments to assure water quality. March 1, 2021 Page 46 Our boat slips will be reduced to 75 under the residential plan from 99 under the commercial plan. We would create a destination location of residential users that would enjoy concierge services that would create an environment to keep them off the beach versus the commercial development. We would have full connectivity to the neighborhood with sidewalks and bike paths that were well lit and densely planted with lush landscaping to make fit aesthetically please -- to make it aesthetically pleasing, not to mention the improved drainage. In addition to the reduced density and commercial square footage, bike paths and sidewalks would be open to the public. The traffic signalization and signalized pedestrian of the crossing, the left- and right-hand turn lanes, parking garage technology upgrades and signage will significantly improve the flow of traffic. The transportation model clearly shows our project, as stated, that the traffic flow would be significantly better after our project is complete with all the traffic improvements versus the existing conditions there today. Open space and the possibility for further development around our project was satisfied with the DaRuMa acquisition. We feel we spent a significant amount of time listening and making adjustments to our project to make it more compatible. This project has been in the public eye and has brought controversy from the opposition. We have been extremely transparent about the facts, and you see exactly what we intend to build: A high quality, luxury residential community that is highly amenitized resort-like destination located -- that is lushly landscaped and integrated into the neighborhood. Unfortunately, I do not think the opposition has been as transparent with the facts with its supporters. We never intended to expose the parking garage wall with no landscaping as it is March 1, 2021 Page 47 continually depicted in the opposition's renderings. We also show renderings of our project at the appropriate height from all angles of the community. Their renderings with height, landscaping, and at selected angles do not give a fair representation of what our project would look like when built. Their scaled model has not represented a good portion of the largest buildings in Regatta or the buildings south of Vanderbilt. I distinctly remember on a call with the opposition stating that we had satisfied their traffic concerns and that if we could go to a total of 12 stories, they would support us, as a precedent was already set around us. At that time, I did not think we could go there. Well, we are there now. I was surprised to hear at planning and zoning that the opposition now supported commercial alternative. For a group that has been so vocally against traffic to now state they support an alternative commercial plan that generates nine times the amount of net p.m. peak-hour traffic is surprising. We were accused of so-called bribing our neighbors at Vanderbilt Palm and Barefoot Pelican. I was offended to hear that. As they approach us to ask that we work with them, as the directly adjacent neighbors, and asked us to integrate their communities to make them feel like they were a part of our project. We never considered approaching them with improvements to their properties in trade for their vote. They came to us with a list to consider for us to work with them to be neighborly and to protect and improve their properties. We settled on a portion of the list that we felt was reasonable, as they are directly impacted adjacent to our site. We did not get accused of that by others not so directly impacted when we were asked by them to reduce the density and the height, increase setbacks and landscaping, increase open space, and improve traffic. March 1, 2021 Page 48 I have been disappointed by the amount of people showing opposition to this project; however, when I see the information they are presented, then I understand. I appreciate all of the feedback that the community has given. I want you to know that we sincerely listened and care about the concerns. Although I realize many of the property -- many want the property to stay in the existing condition and never be developed, the reality is that it's going to be developed, and there are two options. I can assure you that either way it will be a quality development. Has any of the opposition supporters asked their leadership why they now support an alternative commercial use that generates nine times the amount of traffic? The traffic is smaller in scope and scale than I initially envisioned; however, I feel really good that we had worked with the community and ended where we did. Our original vision of a primarily residential community that complements and is -- and compatible with the community is clearer now than ever. If you want to protect -- if you want a project with less traffic and noise, protects property values, and integrates into the neighborhood, vote the proposed One Naples. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Stock, I just have a question for you, if I could, if you'd come back to the podium. I've been out to that site a lot, even well before this was talked about, before I was sitting in this seat. And one of the big chokepoints -- and you briefly mentioned it, but I really want you to go on record, and I want to hear the details. But one of the big chokepoints I think is the county parking garage. I mean, a lot of cars get queued back there. And you talked about some upgrades. You know, I read them and whatnot, but I think just for the sake of the record, if you could go over what you are -- what you have March 1, 2021 Page 49 promised to do, what the timeline would be and those things. And I realize this isn't the biggest heavy-lifting piece. But if traffic is the biggest thing, our own parking garage creates quite a bit of traffic. So could you summarize what you intend to do and when that would start? MR. STOCK: Yeah. When we analyzed that and our traffic consultants looked at that, we got three different proposals, because there was stacking at the parking garage, and by putting a left-hand turn lane in there and internally stacking versus, like Jim had mentioned, stacking outside and the rotation of the bottleneck that's there, just by automated internally, we suggested by three different consultants, and we gave the recommendation or proposals to the county that -- on our dime that we would pay for it, because it would significantly, as Jim mentioned, improve the traffic flow. So we're prepared. Whatever option that the county deems the best solution for that -- and there was three of them -- to internalize the parking and the traffic in the ticketing inside to take the traffic out of the road. It's our obligation, as you see further in this presentation, that we'll pay for it, and we'll install it, just like the traffic light, before we go vertical on the project. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Much like the light, it would be -- if all this got approved, would be sooner -- it would be towards the beginning -- MR. STOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- not afterwards? Okay. MR. STOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So would it be similar to what we see on Fifth Avenue and those parking garages there, the counting and the numbers? And I know it's more than that because, I mean, I read everything. But if you would just summarize for maybe the people that are watching that, you know, don't have all the March 1, 2021 Page 50 detail, what would it be? MR. STOCK: Yeah, just the same thing. And I'm not familiar -- that familiar with the parking structure there, but I know we analyzed other sites that successfully put the automation inside the parking structure, and it significantly, as Jim reflected in his presentation, improved the flow, because you're, again, stacking internally and you're paying as you go, paying when leave, not stacking and paying and waiting for people based on timing of getting into the parking ramp. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. A couple -- well, a couple of questions, Mr. Stock, whether it's you or Mr. Yovanovich, either way. I just have a couple things, because you mentioned that on the commercial option, you'd be looking for 99 slips, and it would be a commercial marina open to the public. MR. STOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And so would there be a -- and I had heard some reference to a ship store. MR. STOCK: Yeah. There's a small ship store proposed and, as you mentioned, yes, it's just a small square footage that could be available for people coming up to the project, because even with the One Naples, the intent was to privatize all of those slips and be available for the residents that live as a residential use; however, there are a couple transient slips as far as in our plan, and we're keeping the public gas tanks that are currently there, and they would remain. However, we believe -- you know, we would be building the docks, and we feel the demand we could -- we could reduce the amount of total slips under the residential use. However, developed as an entertainment district with restaurants and retail and shops, we March 1, 2021 Page 51 feel there will be substantially more demand that people, the public would want to come in, and so then we would build it to the full 99 slips, because that would be a way of accessibility for people by boat to come up to the public accessibility entertainment district. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so there are -- and I'm not familiar with the ship store because I've never had a boat, but -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good for you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Apparently, I have one now. That the ship store on the residential side or option, would that be open to the public as well? MR. STOCK: It would be. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It would be. MR. STOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But it would be -- and there's already gas tanks there? MR. STOCK: Yes, there's a fueling station. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And people can purchase gasoline? MR. STOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is it open right now? MR. STOCK: It's being refurbished. I guess there was some issues with Irma with it, but it was -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right. But there's a ship store there now? MR. STOCK: There is not a ship store. It would be part -- it's just a small little, like, 1,500 -- 1,000, 1,500 square foot just open to the public where there's just miscellaneous clothing and things for the marina and for boaters. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the 75 slips on the residential option would be dedicated and leased or sold or whatever you would do with them to -- specifically only to residents? MR. STOCK: Yes, with the exception, I think -- what is there? March 1, 2021 Page 52 I believe there's three transient slips -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. STOCK: -- for the public to come up and fuel their boats there. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. STOCK: But the majority of the docks all would be for private use for residents of One Naples project. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I don't really want to put you on the spot if you don't know the answer, because a lot of what has been represented screams of lack of infrastructure to me for the quality of life for the people that are already here. And maybe it's later in your presentation. But what is the cost of the extension of the left-turn lane, the automation of the parking lot, and the parking traffic signal? MR. STOCK: We have the detail of that, and Rich in his presentation, when he comes up, will -- the total's a million 750, and the details of that for public use, Rich will go through the line -item details of what that is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. MR. STOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, one of the things I neglected to say in my opening comments is under your Growth Management Plan, this property is not supposed to be commercial. When the Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989, this was not identified as a commercial parcel. It was allowed to remain as a commercial parcel under your consistent-by-policy determination because there was existing commercial on it. March 1, 2021 Page 53 Your hope was by adopting a 16-unit-per-acre residential conversion that the property would convert from commercial to a residential option. Now, I'm sure you're aware that most projects in Collier County that had existing commercial have not taken advantage of that 16-unit-per-acre conversion because it did not make economic sense at 16 units per acre to give up the commercial option. So one of the important things to remember is when the neighbors are saying they want commercial, that really is inconsistent with the intent of what this parcel is supposed to be, and that's because most of the uses around us are, in fact, residential uses. So you've heard a lot of -- you've heard a lot of commitments through our presentation, and I want to just summarize those. We are going to reduce our density to 140 residential dwelling units, which reduces the trip cap to 132 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. We will design and install the traffic signal and a separate westbound right-turn lane. We will design and install a left-turn lane into the Collier County parking garage. We will design and install enhanced technology, whatever the county decides they want that technology to be, including signage that lets people know as they're getting closer to the garage that it's either already full or there's 12 spaces left. That's at our expense. We will design and install improvements to South Bay, which includes removal of roadside swale and installing an enclosed drainage system. We're -- construction of 10-foot travel lanes, 4-foot bike lanes, and 5-foot sidewalks. We'll design and install a sidewalk along the east side of Gulf Shore adjacent to the project. We'll design and install an 8-foot-wide multiuse pathway along the north side of Vanderbilt. We'll design and install and maintain enhanced landscaping, which we've shown you. We will design and install and maintain enhanced landscaping in adjacent rights-of-ways. March 1, 2021 Page 54 That's all part of your landscape maintenance agreement. There will be no vertical construction to the Mixed-Use Trac1 1, which is where the two towers are. I'm sorry? MR. GELDER: Go to the next slide. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm reading and -- sorry. We will not -- there will be no vertical construction on that tract until -- there's going to be -- there's some easements -- utility easements that there need to be some relocates, and we've agreed that we can't go vertical until we relocate the utilities and give the county the appropriate easements. We are going to locate Gulf Shore Court so it now lines up with your parking garage instead of where it is. And with the DaRuMa parcel, we have basically -- I'm just going to read it into the record. It says, the development of One Naples -- of the One Naples project is conditioned upon the existing DaRuMa restaurant being demolished prior to the commencement of vertical construction of the One Naples project. Upon demolition of the existing DaRuMa restaurant, the DaRuMa parcel, as legally described in Exhibit H -- we've provided this to your staff -- will initially be used for construction, staging, or parking. After completion of the One Naples development, the DaRuMa parcel shall be utilized as an open -space amenity for One Naples. The following uses will be permitted on the DaRuMa parcel: Hardscape and landscape areas, restrooms, shade structures, fire pits, grills, bocce ball courts, putting green, fountains, and gazebos, utilities, stormwater, sidewalks, ingre ss and egress and infrastructure facilities as may be required to support One Naples, and low-level lighting fixtures are permitted. The following uses are prohibited: Clubhouses, tennis courts, pickleball courts, swimming pools, residential or commercial development. March 1, 2021 Page 55 It's intended to be a parklike amenity for One Naples. We think that benefits the overall community because they will now drive by and see this parklike area. It's additional open space above and beyond what's required under the Land Development Code, and we think it's a tremendous enhancement to the overall project. I went through, under the existing zoning, the traffic signalization doesn't occur, the parking garage technology doesn't occur, the South Bay landscaping doesn't occur, the sidewalks don't occur in South Bay, the drainage improvements don't occur, the street lighting off site don't occur, and the bike lines off site don't occur. As Brain mentioned, the improvements -- the cost of those improvements are estimated on this slide. The traffic signal's about a half a million dollars. The garage technology is about another $250,000. Landscape upgrades, utility upgrades. All of that totals a million 750. So the road vacation petition is not a free -- a freebie to Mr. Stock. He is incurring a million $750,000 in expenses. We've looked at what's the ad valorem tax value of the property under the commercial alternative or the residential alternative. Using the Venetian Village as a comp, it's about $300,000 annually in ad valorem taxes under the commercial option. Based upon 140 residential dwelling units, the overall ad valorem tax generated from the residential alternative is a little over $3.6 million. So there's an annual difference in tax revenue of almost $3.3 million between the two different options. We have support from our neighbors. Judy Dugan, who I think is going to speak, that's Buzz's Lighthouse. She's been there for over 50 years. She's supporting our project. Barefoot Pelican Condominium Association voted to support our project. That doesn't mean there aren't individual unit owners. We understand that. But the overall vote of the community was to support the project. Likewise, Vanderbilt Palms voted to support the project. March 1, 2021 Page 56 So when you look -- you look at what's around us, you see our project and our closest neighbors, and they're supporting the project. They recognize that that's the best alternative based upon the facts as they're truthfully portrayed. Troy, I'm going to need your help. Can you play -- this is the real project. (A video was played as follows:) "Presenting One Naples, a brilliant residential vision that doesn't reinvent a neighborhood but complements its legacy. Located at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, this first-class community is envisioned by Stock, a trusted local family-owned developer. "One Naples, better than the commercial alternative, better for traffic, better for Naples, and the responsible choice by the award-winning Stock Development. "Learn more at OneNaples.com." MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, that's Brian's vision for this project. As I started the presentation, you have options: Commercial, which is the existing zoning. That's by right. Don't ever see us again. We'll just go forward with a Site Development Plan; never see us again on this piece of property. I didn't want to encourage you to -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was going to say, that's a bonus. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we'll go forward -- we'll go forward on the commercial alternative or the site plan that includes DaRuMa's and improves the overall community. The benefits of the project are residential uses are compatible and complementary. Bob took you through that, in his expert opinion. There's plenty of documentation in the backup materials. But when you look at what are -- what's the density around us, we are clearly consistent with the density around us and, frankly, March 1, 2021 Page 57 we're on the lower end of the density around us. And I want to point out, your staff, both zoning and Growth Management Plan staff, are supporting a density of 172 units per acre. They have determined that that's compatible and complementary. We're at 140, so we've further reduced the number. As I mentioned, the Growth Management Plan does not really want commercial to be here. There's no question that One Naples will enhance the area. Those differences in traffic, I think, are staggering. It's nine times the amount of traffic if you do the commercial option in the peak hour. And I -- and I miscalculated the number. Jim had it at 600 net trips on a 24 -hour basis versus I had said something a little over 800. It's really eight times more traffic in a 24-hour period if you go with that option. Our traffic improvements are a million 750. The ad valorem taxes is a very big difference. And I think, most importantly, Brian here -- been here 20 years. He's been here 20 years developing in Collier County. He cares about his reputation, and he is committed to this being a first-class development. So let's go back to the survey. Compare One Naples to the C-3 option. Quality of life in Collier County is important to me. Brian agrees, strongly agrees. The One Naples option is the best option for quality of life. Smart growth. One Naples is the better growth option for the property. Adequate infrastructure. There's no question that Brian's project is better from an infrastructure standpoint than the C-3 option. Beach availability. There's going to be far less bodies on that beach with a residential option than if you had a commercial attractor, because the beach is a great amenity. Go to the beach, come enjoy the restaurants, go back to the beach. Clean beaches. I think that's the same choice. It's a much March 1, 2021 Page 58 better option under the One Naples. This one confused me: Red tide and erosion control is important to me. Well, I think it's important to everybody, but we think that, clearly, the One Naples project has nothing to do with red tide and has nothing to do with erosion control and is the better option. Green space in Collier County is important to me. There is no green space requirement under the C-3 option. What we've shown you is a much better open-space option for the residents. Manatee and environmental protection. We've always been committed to following the Manatee Protection Plan. We have to follow the Manatee Protection Plan. We're willing -- we qualify for 99 units under the Manatee Protection Plan. We're willing to commit to 75. Neighborhood consistency. It's residential all around us. There are towers all around us. We are consistent with that. Hurricane evacuation. We have provided what Dan Summers says is the adequate hurricane mitigation for this piece of property. Dan Summers knows hurricanes in Collier County far better than any expert they may put up there to talk about hurricane evacuation. Traffic management. They have that a couple of times. Traffic is important to us, and we think our improvements clearly address that traffic concern. Developer should be able to amend the Comp Plan for their benefit. I started at the beginning; it was it depends. For the right project, we should be allowed to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and we're convinced that we have the right project to amend the Comprehensive Plan that we're proposing. And we agree that commissioners always vote for residents' best interest. That's what you're here to do, to look at what's the best option. March 1, 2021 Page 59 I started with the truth matters, and we still believe the truth matters. When you look at all the real facts, we believe that the One Naples project is the right project for this area, fits in with the community, is what the community really wants to see happen on this property. And with that, we thank you for your time, and we are available to answer any questions you may have that you haven't already asked, or we'll continue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. A couple of questions that have been posed to me by residents in -- within the Vanderbilt area and otherwise. At 140 units, how many parking spaces are going to be in the garage? There's -- and I'll tell you why I'm asking that question. There is a concern that there won't be enough parking -- and maybe this is a better question for staff as well. I was going to ask staff this question. But the parking calculation is based upon the number of units. I've never heard of us approving a condominium development where people had to park on the street because there wasn't enough parking within a condominium development. But I just want to get on the record, how many parking spaces are we going to have in the garage? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you know the number? MR. MULHERE: Don't know the exact number. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then the answer is, all of our parking is going to be within our parking lot. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to ask my architect during the break, how many parking spaces do you anticipate to be under the building -- the buildings to meet parking, but we're not using the streets. March 1, 2021 Page 60 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's all on site. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's all on site; good. The other issue that's come up -- and I believe Mr. Pires is here. Stock has committed to two buildings, correct? There's going to be two buildings, not one building? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. This. Yes, this is the option. You have a -- I'm getting coached. Yes, you can see on the visualizer there are two buildings. They are a minimum of 50 feet apart and, as we've said, we have the setbacks that's the minimum at the closest point for both of those buildings at 35 feet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. The Regatta has two buildings, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: They do. And -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How far apart are the Regatta buildings? Does anyone know? MR. YOVANOVICH: They are 15 feet apart for their -- their 10-over-two towers. You can see it. You can see that there's not -- there's not much space between their multifamily buildings. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If I can, I'd like staff to confirm that for me when staff presents. MR. YOVANOVICH: When they present? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Let me just make sure that I've got all my questions answered here. Oh, going back to the commercial option, the structures on Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore, they would be varying heights? There would be more than -- there would be one-story, two-story, three-story? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be between two and three stories on those -- March 1, 2021 Page 61 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Three stories. The three stories would be how high as of right under C-3? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're C-3. The minimum -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The zoned height? MR. YOVANOVICH: The zoned height is 50 feet. And I'm starting at about 21 feet. So I'm at 70-plus feet under -- before I put the roof on it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the top of the parking garage structures on the residential proposal is how high? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 30 feet with a clear balcony -- I'm sorry -- railing, if you looked at that. So it would be 30 feet with a setback of 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the first floor of the parking, because it's parking is at -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's below -- it's at -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. We're not talking about 35 plus the FEMA -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 30 feet actual. It's an actual -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It starts at road level? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Nothing else for now. Thanks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. Let me -- I need to clarify something I said. They were -- the Regatta was approved at a 15-foot separation but was constructed at a 30-foot separation. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thirty, okay. And the commitment here is two buildings, 50 feet apart? MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum of 50 feet apart. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Minimum of 50 feet apart. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, the 1.75 million that March 1, 2021 Page 62 you've committed to for the light and the upgrades to the county's parking garage, is that regardless of what gets approved today, if it's commercial or residential? That's only tied if it's residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- if I didn't say it clearly enough, that's only a residential improvement. There's no -- interestingly enough, we meet the traffic concurrency standards for the 100,000 square feet without doing any of those related traffic improvements. So none of the traffic improvements will be -- will be constructed as part of the commercial option. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So if the commercial option generates nine times the amount of traffic, why wouldn't we be doing, like, way more aggressive things to attack the traffic? What am I missing? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're missing because we meet the level-of-service standard with the additional traffic and don't have to do any of those improvements as part of a commercial option. We've elected, as part of our residential option, to do all of those improvements because we've committed to addressing transportation concerns as part of the residential option. So we're above and beyond what would be required under the traffic review, so... COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But if commercial got approved and traffic was nine times worse, then you wouldn't be attacking any of that increased problem. It would be something that probably falls back on the county, because we couldn't ignore it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the county would have to decide whether it wants to make those improvements or not make those improvements. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, we'd have to do something, because that's a pretty huge jump, I would think. And right now there's traffic problems there at times, but -- okay. No, you've clarified it. Thank you. March 1, 2021 Page 63 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just to Commissioner Solis, which was more a point of clarification. You said multiple times two buildings. I think there's more than two buildings. There's two towers. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sorry, two towers. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's no sorries. I just -- I wanted to make sure your question that I was understanding has to do with the 10-over-two towers, not the total amount of buildings. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. No, no. There was a concern -- and I think Mr. Pires is here -- that there could be just one big tower instead of two towers, and I see two towers on the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- on the exhibits, so I just wanted to make sure that that's abundantly clear in the record that it is two towers 50 feet apart minimum. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no question, and it's in our Development Standards Table for the PUD that they have to have two towers and they have to be separated by two -- but we have a total of five residential buildings, but -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for the towers there's a requirement that it be 50 feet apart. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No more questions. I believe -- have you finished, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I believe staff has a -- some questions for you, sir, if you'd -- MR. YOVANOVICH: For me? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- remain at the podium. March 1, 2021 Page 64 MS. JENKINS: For Bob. Good morning, Commissioners, Anita Jenkins, Zoning Director, for the record. And I just have a couple of questions for Mr. Mulhere, actually. Bob, just to clarify, from the time that we saw this application from the Planning Commission, do you recall the date that you resubmitted this application to staff? MR. MULHERE: You mean after the Planning Commission? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: I don't think there was a re-submittal after the Planning Commission. I don't think so. I think the one -- 1/6 is what I believe was the last. MS. JENKINS: Okay. I have a date of January 5th. Would you trust me if I told you that? MR. MULHERE: That's the one. MS. JENKINS: Great. So in that re-submittal do you recall what the height of the towers were at that time? MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't have it in front of me, but I trust you have it in front of you. MS. JENKINS: Would you trust me if I told you it was 186? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that sounds exactly right. MS. JENKINS: Okay. And since that time, have you submitted anything to staff that you're presenting to the Board this morning on the heights and the setbacks? MR. MULHERE: No. MS. JENKINS: So staff has not reviewed any of the information? We're getting it all new with the Board today -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MS. JENKINS: -- is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. That's the reduction from 12 over two to 10 over two, yes. March 1, 2021 Page 65 MS. JENKINS: Okay. And it sounded also like you made some changes to setbacks -- MR. MULHERE: Density. MS. JENKINS: -- and other development standards that staff has not reviewed? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. JENKINS: Is that accurate? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Also at the Planning Commission on November 5th, on Page 111, you made a commitment or an agreement at that time to remove a condition that you had in there or, rather, a deviation for a DR process; do you recall the DR process? MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. MS. JENKINS: And when staff reviewed the PUD that you resubmitted, that condition was still in there. Would you agree to remove that? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Also, you agreed at that time to a Type B buffer along the waterfront if you do not build a building. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. JENKINS: And that is still in there. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Would you agree today to remove that? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Also, Mr. Mulhere, is DaRuMa in the PUD ordinance that is before the Board today? MR. MULHERE: It is not. MS. JENKINS: And how do we calculate density in a PUD? MR. MULHERE: We calculate density based on the gross acreage. MS. JENKINS: And so based on the gross acreage of the PUD, March 1, 2021 Page 66 what is the gross acreage of the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't calculate it. MS. JENKINS: 5.42. And so based on that, how we calculate density in a PUD, what would the density be? MR. MULHERE: I've got to do the math. I don't have -- MS. JENKINS: Would you trust if it's 25.8? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Not 22.5 that you've represented today? MR. MULHERE: That lower number clearly includes DaRuMa, which we stated when we stated the number. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Just for the record, Commissioners, we do not calculate density based on property that's outside of a PUD that's in front of you today. So the density that they're presenting today would be based on that PUD, would be 25.8 with 140 units. And that's all the questions I have. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask Ms. Jenkins a couple questions since she asked questions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course. MS. JENKINS: I don't think that's the order today. I think the order today is staff gets to ask questions of the applicant, and then they can ask afterwards. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. That's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm happy to wait. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so now we have staff's presentation, I believe. MS. JENKINS: Troy, it doesn't look like -- it's minimized. Troy, I don't see the staff's presentation minimized down here. MR. MILLER: It was not in the folder on the I drive. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Jenkins, did you find it? MR. MILLER: You found it? MS. JENKINS: I thought you were driving. March 1, 2021 Page 67 MR. MILLER: I was driving. Oh, there you go. Is that the one you want? MS. JENKINS: That's it, yeah. We're Growth Management Department. Thank you. Again, Commissioners, Anita Jenkins, for the record. I'm going to just begin this on behalf of staff. We have lots of experts here as well. But, again, today we're talking about a right-of-way vacation, a Growth Management Plan amendment, a rezone, and a landscape maintenance agreement. The right-of-way vacation, you did set the hearing for today but a resolution earlier in January. So that date is set for today in accordance with state statutes. So as I just mentioned, we have not seen what was just presented to you, so our presentation is going to be very confusing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Ms. Jenkins, I think it's untoward that as of Friday no one has seen the presentation of the applicant. I find it extraordinary that staff has not had time to review it, and I feel that there needs to be a continuation of this issue until you've had such time because, as you just spoke, this is confusing. It's very confusing to me. I'm going through this thinking -- and you asked the questions I was going to ask. So I'd like to see if there's support among my colleagues to continue this until such time that Ms. Jenkins has an opportunity and her staff to review the changed PUD, the changed dimensions. It's critical. How can we deliberate? How can we depend on staff when they first just saw it? I saw Mr. Sabo looking and copying down back there as this was being presented. So I'm here to -- here to see what the wish of my colleagues are based on the confusing representation as admitted by staff for this issue. March 1, 2021 Page 68 Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ms. Jenkins, did you -- did I see that there was an approval of this project as was previously presented? MS. JENKINS: We are recommending approval, and the zoning was based on conditions, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As previously presented? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, again, given the fact that you haven't had an opportunity to review with specificity the adjustments, could I -- would I be incorrect that the adjustments are nothing other than a benefit to what has already been approved by staff? MS. JENKINS: So it appears that they're coming closer in the height. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Closer to what? MS. JENKINS: Closer to the staff's recommendation in height. We began at 208, what was resubmitted was 186, and I believe they're at 165 now. So staff's recommendation was 125. So we can see that they are responding and reducing the height. There was a lot of information on different setbacks that -- I didn't catch all of those. So, you know, we're not responding to the setbacks. Although we will recognize that that setback along Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt at 25 feet, they have made that adjustment. So I don't know what other changes are made. We would want a commitment in the PUD to these changes to perhaps come back on consent agenda for review. Also, we would want commitments to two towers in the PUD. All of these commitments that I'm hearing today we have not reviewed. And as we recognized recently, that sometimes we hear commitments made before you at the Board or ideas made to you March 1, 2021 Page 69 before the Board, but if it's not in the PUD, then staff can't go back to look at minutes and records of what commitments were made. So unless it's in the PUD document, we can't say that it is a commitment. So we need to see it in the ordinance itself to evaluate that as a whole. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: In the ordinance itself or within the PUD doc? MS. JENKINS: It's one and the same. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, Anita, you just said that the staff -- based upon the prior submittal, staff was in agreement with -- or recommending 125? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And at that submittal, the submittal was, I think you said, 165. MS. JENKINS: Eighty-six. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A hundred and eighty-six? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And now we're being told that the commitment is 129? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One sixty-five. MS. JENKINS: One sixty-five. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- MS. JENKINS: Actual. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer -- remember, there's two measurements. There's the zoning height measurement where -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: He asked me. He asked me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I think the question is being directed to staff. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, but I would like to hear his March 1, 2021 Page 70 response, because I want to make sure that we're clear on -- I mean, this whole issue is about let's make clear on the record what's being agreed to and what's being suggested. So I would like to hear -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Have you finished with your questions for Ms. Jenkins right now? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- on that question. I have other questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Could you just ask her? I think we need to keep some kind of order here. I think Ms. Jenkins has had great patience with this presentation, and I think she deserves to be respected in her response. Ms. Jenkins. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So I just heard you refer to and recognize that they have agreed to a further setback to 25 feet. MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that was what was the staff's recommendation as it was previously proposed? MS. JENKINS: Correct, on Gulf Shore -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-five. MS. JENKINS: -- and Vanderbilt. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was 25? MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So they've essentially agreed to what staff was recommending? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. That one was a little bit different, Commissioner, in that we had the commercial issue that I'll go over with you. But, yes, they are setting that back to 25 feet, which would be what would be required with C-3 today. So we have no concerns about that. March 1, 2021 Page 71 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MS. JENKINS: Yep. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In terms of the traffic analysis that was presented, have you reviewed the traffic analysis that was presented today? MS. JENKINS: I have not, but I don't know that -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Staff? MS. JENKINS: -- our staff has as well, and I would let our other transportation staff speak to traffic issues. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. Can you explain how the parking calculation is done for determining how much parking a development -- a condominium development -- how that's calculated? I just want there to be an explanation on the record of how parking calculations are done, because I've heard several residents suggest that there wouldn't be enough parking somehow within the structure for the people that live there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, that's a great question, but I think right now we're dealing with the question of whether staff is even going to continue presentation today. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So with all due respect, I'm sure you'll be able to answer it later, but I think the question at hand is for staff on what they said is -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, she's already just said that they haven't seen it, so I'm -- I either get to ask my questions or I don't. I mean, I'd like to ask my questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. You will be able to, sir, but perhaps this isn't the appropriate time. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is staff's presentation, isn't it? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. It's a question of wheth er we're going to continue this or not. March 1, 2021 Page 72 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did you make a motion, Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. Excuse me. I allowed some discussion at this point, sir, and this is what this discussion is. I want to keep focus on this discussion, and then at some -- when we talk about -- you had questions for staff. I have three other commissioners lined up to speak, and then I will make a motion. But, specifically, it is your concern, which I assumed was going to be, that staff feels confident -- I'm sure they do, but that there is enough confusion to say that perhaps it would be better to continue this. And I think I'd like to keep that laser focused for this discussion right now. And if there isn't the support to continue this, then staff will present, and we'll all be able to ask questions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then -- okay. So my understanding was that staff was going to make their presentation. You've raised the issue of whether or not it should be continued. Why don't you make a motion, and then we'll decide whether or not it's going to be continued. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'll take that into concern. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I am going to laser focus your question. We're all here to do the right thing. I think that to have staff to be able to do their due diligence is important and to do a complete review but, by your own admission, the -- and you don't want say the small changes, but there are some new additional things. But it's not the heavy-lifting piece -- still important. We want 100 percent review. So if you've reviewed whatever the percentage is, 90, and we have 10 percent, it's critical. I'll say that's important. But by your own admission, you said the new things that have come in -- and, yeah, you're wagging -- you know, you're just saying off the March 1, 2021 Page 73 top of your head, Stock's come closer to -- you know, so we didn't hear new worse things but, still, that doesn't mean you're going to sit there from the podium and make a -- you know, an assessment or whatnot. But I think there's no reason to stall anything. I mean, you've got a lot of people out here that haven't been heard yet. So if the staff needs to -- you know, like you said, Madam Chair, if you need to make a motion or something, that's another thing. But just for open conversation here, I think the small pieces that you need to take a look at are only going to improve the Stock Development side. I don't know what it's going to do to the other side. But I don't think we've -- and I don't know if this is what you're implying, that we stall everything here; we don't even get to hear the other side of the -- what the citizens' concerns are until staff comes back at a later date having, you know, analyzed the small pieces that ar e new. Even if they are, you know, critical, they seem like they're leaning more towards the positive. But, you know, if you're just asking for, like you said, a laser focus, I would just say, there's enough here to continue, and if the staff needs to look over some things at lunch or we need to come back for that little piece, that will be a motion. But I would disagree to stall anything. I think we've got enough meat on the bone, and we're making great progress here. I think we continue. And if in the end we don't think we've got everything, you know, then we make that determination. That's what I would -- that would be my position. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a quick question, and I'll comment on the continuance as well. The staff recommendation was for approval with the exception that the building height be no more March 1, 2021 Page 74 than 125 feet. So the original petition was acceptable to staff except for the height issue. MS. JENKINS: And some setbacks. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And some setbacks. So the petitioner has solved the setback issue, I believe; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So we're left with, from your perspective, a problem with the height. That's still an issue. So the issue of the DaRuMa parcel being included, it seems to me that that's easy to work out in terms of the documentation. It seems to me that all of this actually enhances the project better than what you had already recommended for approval with the exception of the height. And in reference to the height issue, that's something, obviously, we can deal with when and if the vote on the project comes up. Am I missing something here? We're still talking about the height issue. MS. JENKINS: Yes. And the confusion, when I say there's confusion, there's going to be confusion in staff's presentation because staff's presentation is based on what was submitted. So I don't want to confuse -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Understood. MS. JENKINS: -- the public that this is what is presented by the applicant now, what we have on our slide, because it was submitted earlier. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. So the confusion that you're having is just melding into your presentation or at le ast reacting to what has been improvements to the application? MS. JENKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Based on that, I don't see any March 1, 2021 Page 75 reason to continue this as well. We've got hundreds of people that are ready to proceed, and we have one -- it seems to me we have one issue for staff to continue to discuss, and that's the height issue. So I would oppose any continuance. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me earlier. I just was -- we'd gone off on a different track when I started asking questions, and your laser focus on the discussion of continuance or not went down a different path, so -- and I might have led that charge, so forgive me. I have a question for Anita, if I may, with regard to the height. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And in -- and, again, as a point of clarification, staff's representation of 125 feet, is that zoned or actual? MS. JENKINS: Actual. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. So that's a -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think at this point there's no support for continuance. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so I think that with your indulgence, Commissioner Solis, we'll ask staff to present, and then we'll be open for questions. And, Commissioner Solis, you will be the first one to ask the questions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome. MS. JENKINS: So if it would be appropriate, we could break for lunch now. Staff would be happy to review the information that has been presented, and then -- with the applicant, and then come back, if you would like that, and finish our presentation. March 1, 2021 Page 76 I'm not sure that we're going to have time to amend all these slides to what's presented to you today, but we can certainly t alk with them and look more closely at all of the changes they've made so we can react in a more appropriate way to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, you may. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a strikethrough and underline to show everything we just talked about, to show the reduction in density, the reduction in height. We can provide that to staff so they can look at that during lunch so there's no confusion as to what we're asking for. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's no sense -- there's no question, sir, that you're prepared. The question is that it was not given to staff in advance of this meeting. But thank you. I think it's a good suggestion that we'll break for lunch. We'll be back here at a quarter to 1:00. Thank you very much. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.) MR. OCHS: Ma'am, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Welcome back, everyone. I think we're -- the staff is about to present, and I trust you had the hour and you used it wisely, so -- MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- thank you very much. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Thank you, Troy. Again, Anita Jenkins, for the record. And, Madam Chair, the full county staff has not been sworn in. They were in the conference room this morning, not in -- crowded in here, so we'll need to swear in the county staff, and I would like to do March 1, 2021 Page 77 that before I begin, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Why don't we do that. THE COURT REPORTER: That's all? MS. JENKINS: That's all. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. JENKINS: Thank you. So just to pick up back where I was -- oh. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mind you, this is transportation right now. These guys talk about p.m. and a.m. and all those good things. Okay. Go ahead. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. So during the lunch hour, we did have an opportunity to review the revised commitments that were made, and James Sabo will address those after I cover a few things. We're going to flip through these slides. We did not change the slides. I don't want the public or anyone to be confused on this. So we're not going to use those as much with the exception of the Comprehensive Planning slides. But I did want to hit on a point here that you did receive a letter from Mr. Greg Stuart that had some concerns about staff's changes, and I did want to put on the record for you where those changes came from, and they came from the Planning Commission when we were there. We had substantial evidence submitted on elevation and how the commercial at the ground floor was not possible. And so at that time and through those discussions and the testimony provided, the applicant agreed to provide the commercial accessible to the public where they could build it, and that agreement was stated three times on the record. And if you'd like me to go through that record, I will March 1, 2021 Page 78 go through it, but it ended with the chairman of the Planning Commission noting that we have made progress when we can have an agreement on the record between the applicant and staff. So I just wanted to put that on the record. There was no secrecy. There was no back meetings. It was all done in the public. And at the same time, the wedding architecture that the staff had talked about, those thoughts were coming through that review process prior to the time that we had an opportunity to see the architectural renderings and then also hear the testimony from the applicant's architect at the time. That architect testified that -- the same concerns that staff had about light, air, and massing were addressed at the Planning Commission. So with that testimony and that expertise from an architect, we were able to be satisfied with that recommendation as well. So that's where the changes came from on the record during the Planning Commission. So from the county today you're going to hear from planning, landscape architecture, or actually not landscape architecture. We're going to skip that one because you heard the applicant agree to that commitment earlier today when I asked them that question. So that's what that slide was about, and that was agreed to, so we don't have to review that. Environmental review. We'll talk a little bit about the marina, and then we'll hear about infrastructure from utilities and transportation. Then the last two petitions today are the right -of-way and the land-use maintenance agreement that you'll hear about. So, again, just to begin with the existing land use and zoning. It is urban mixed-use district, and you heard a little bit this morning that your Comprehensive Plan at the time when it was created designated this area as mixed-use residential. And this parcel is consistent by policy, and what that means is there was existing commercial uses on that property when your Comprehensive Plan was adopted. So to March 1, 2021 Page 79 address these different types of uses, there is consistent-by-policy language that I'm going to go through with you in just a minute. But it does -- your Comprehensive Plan was incentivizing -- those smaller commercial areas that were outside of your activity centers for the Comp Plan was trying to concentrate commercial activity in activity centers. So you provide an incentive to those smaller commercial areas with higher residential density, and it was 16 units per acre at that time. The current zoning at C-3, staff has contemplated up to 164,000 square feet for commercial uses as a potential to understand the magnitude of that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are we allowed to ask questions now or wait, while she's on that slide just -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it -- given the technologically -- your presentation is complex. There's a lot of numbers rolling around. I think I'm going to bow to you, ma'am. Would you prefer to be -- to go to the end, or are you okay with questions being asked? MS. JENKINS: I'm okay with questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Especially from me. Back to the last slide, please. Last one, C-3, under about 164,000 now. This is a combined use, I would assume, a mixed use. Is that aggregate commercial and residential, a total of 164-, or just 164- commercial? MS. JENKINS: So we calculated the building envelope that you're seeing on this slide here that's outlined in blue and green to calculate really what the total square footage could be in that. So it would be a combination of commercial and residential, potentially. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you very much. That March 1, 2021 Page 80 was -- thank you. MS. JENKINS: So your Growth Management Plan, again, Chapter 163 requires us to evaluate amendments based on relevant surveys, studies, and data. And then going back directly again to your Comprehensive Plan, Policy 5.3 addresses these consistent-by-policy properties, and it incentivizes residential development, and Policy 5.3.e directs staff to look at when the properties change in the zoning, such as this one's doing, from commercial to residential; it directs us to look at the impacts to public infrastructure, and it directs us to look at the difference between that and that the proposed use has less impacts than the existing use. So we can find that we're consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. The analysis as shown, from public infrastructure, that the proposed residential and limited commercial uses have less public infrastructure impact than the current zoning under C-3, and has no adverse impacts to public infrastructure level of service, is what we measure. So with that, we're going to flip through many of these slides, and I'm going to ask James Sabo to come up and talk to you a little bit about the changes that we've heard about today because you're going to see that we went through a summary of findings on zoning that have changed. So I don't want to have those slides up there and be confusing to anyone. So I'm just going to flip this down to just the landscape slide and then let James let you know about the evaluation that we have had. We did receive a copy of the changes to the document, and during lunchtime staff spent the hour in the conference room reviewing these changes and can react to those now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Attorney Klatzkow, have you had an opportunity to look at these changes? MR. KLATZKOW: No, but my staff has. March 1, 2021 Page 81 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. MR. SABO: Good afternoon, James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager for the county. We did -- as Ms. Jenkins mentioned, we did review the changes at our lunch break. All right. So on MU Tract 1, one of our recommendations was -- and I don't have -- I don't have graphics. I'm sorry. MR. OCHS: Look at it up here. It's on the visualizer. MR. SABO: All right. Oh, all right. Okay. So on Gulf Shore -- it's highlighted in yellow. So MU Tract 1, that's the towers. So one of the things that the developer has committed to do is to actually commit to two towers, so that's an important note. I think Mr. Pires was concerned about that. So they are committing to two towers. They have also increased the tower setback itself from 25 to 35 feet, so they're stepping the tower back further from the street, Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Additionally, we had recommended the setbacks be at 25 feet, and we were relenting on that to allow some street-accessible commercial uses. They're still going to do those street-accessible commercial uses on the second floor there where the real estate and the coffee shop, something along those lines. The setback they changed back to 25 feet, so they're going to meet -- they're going to meet our recommendation for a 25-foot setback. They're still going to have the second floor, the street-accessible commercial uses, so that's -- we are comfortable with that and are good with that change. For multi-use tract -- or Mixed-Use Tract 2, it's not highlighted, but you can see there was a change from 15 to 25 feet. That's also our recommendation for that setback along Vanderbilt Beach Road. Again, that meets our recommendation, so we're comfortable with March 1, 2021 Page 82 that. With respect to Mixed-Use Tract 1 going down to the maximum height, the zoned height was reduced to 129; actual height reduced to 165. Based on the testimony we heard from engineers, Ms. Fountain, and from Mr. Mulhere, the FEMA standards have changed over time. So with this 129 zoned and the 165 actual, they are actually in line with what Regatta had been approved for back in 1996. So those elevation standards were different back in 1996 which allowed Regatta to build a little bit closer to the ground. They have to start at 20.4, they're calling it 21, to be at that first habitable space at 20.4, call it 21. So based on that, and based on the setbacks that they've done for the tower and adding the additional setback, we're comfortable supporting these changes with the two towers. Additionally -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. Commissioner Saunders, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, I do. In terms of the setbacks that they've agreed to, are those the numbers that meet our existing codes? MR. SABO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So they're not asking for any deviations for setbacks? MR. SABO: Not for setbacks. The South Bay Drive setbacks are still at 10 feet. We had recommended 25. So that's still our recommendation for those to be 25, but they want those at 10 feet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, you just contradicted yourself. MR. SABO: Well, the -- we're comfortable with the Mixed-Use Tract 1; I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And that's the Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Drive [sic]. Those are the setbacks that meet our existing codes, and the setbacks that March 1, 2021 Page 83 they're -- the deviation they're asking for, again, is where? MR. SABO: South Bay Drive Mixed-Use Tract 2 -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. SABO: -- 3, and 4, where Mr. Ochs is pointing. Those are -- we are recommending those at 25. So part -- please pardon me. I got caught off guard a little bit, so if you can -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no. That's fine. We just need to have it very clear. MR. SABO: Understood. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't mean to -- I'm not trying to badger you. MR. SABO: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I just -- let's be crystal clear on what's going on. MR. SABO: Understood. And I was -- in fairness, I was going to rely on my slides to help remind me, and they have been -- they've been removed. Anyway, so that is -- that is what they -- they're continuing to propose 10 feet for Mixed-Use Tract 2, Mixed-Use Tract 3, and Mixed-Use Tract 4 for the front setbacks, and our recommendation is still at 25 for those. So we're comfortable with supporting the towers and that change and that increase in the setback. The other thing that they -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you -- I just wanted to clarify that the South Bay center -- and Center streets, those are internal roads. MR. SABO: Correct. Those are internal roads. All right. Then what Mr. Yovanovich had also added was 5A, the DaRuMa parcel. Give me one second. Okay. So this is 5A, the DaRuMa parcel. The developer March 1, 2021 Page 84 agreed to an offsite commitment here -- I won't read all this language. But, essentially, they are committing, as they mentioned in their presentation, those specific uses. They're going to set aside this parcel. The following uses are prohibited: Clubhouses, tennis courts, pickleball courts, swimming pools, et cetera. They have agreed to change language. And we met with the County Attorney about this as well. They agreed to change the language to committing to that off site. And those are the extent of the changes. Oh, also we're reducing the total number of units from 172 to 140 and, obviously, that's a lower number, so we're comfortable with that as well. I'll entertain any other questions. Next is -- we're going to skip landscape, correct? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're all hitting our button. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to -- so we're clear, can you put up the site plan and show us MU2, MU3. MR. SABO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just so that we're clear on what setbacks you're talking about where. MR. SABO: So this -- I'm going to have to wait for it to show up. Okay. This is MU Tract 2. It essentially ends to the west at the Gulf Shore Court roadway. I don't know how to make that turn yellow like Mr. Yovanovich did. That's where MU Tract 2. So fronts on Vanderbilt Beach Road and Center Street. MR. OCHS: Let me try a different schematic here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's better. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There it's good. MR. SABO: All right. So MU Tract 2 we're talking about is there where the pen is. That fronts on Center Street, South Bay Drive, and Vanderbilt Beach Road. They've increased that setback March 1, 2021 Page 85 to 25 feet along Vanderbilt, and the other two are still 10. So that's MU Tract 2. MU Tract 1 is where the towers are. They've increased that setback along Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive to 25 feet, which is what our recommendation was. They had it at 15 feet. That's also -- the gray area is -- that needs to be changed. Am I correct, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I talk? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. What needs to happen is, th is actually moves back, because we agreed to an additional 10 feet there. So that moves back for the -- for the building portion of that. That's not to scale. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nor straight. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's not supposed to be straight. It's supposed to curve. MR. SABO: Okay. So that is MU Tract 1, and that's where they're committing also to have two towers and not a single tower. MU Tract 3 and 4 front the Vanderbilt Lagoon. They are proposing to maintain that at 10 feet, and then the -- our code allows zero-foot setback at the waterfront line. But I would defer to them as to how they're going to design their space, but they can have a zero setback at the waterfront line. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Will you go back to the chart, the one that you had before, so now that we can identify these. MR. OCHS: This one, ma'am? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, this one. So the ones you disagree with here are South Bay Drive and Center Street; is that correct? MR. SABO: Correct. South Bay Drive and Center Street, our recommendation is that they be at the 25-foot, and they are at 10, 10, and 10 and then 10 for Center Street as well. That's 3 and 4, Bay, March 1, 2021 Page 86 and -- MU Tract 3 and 4, correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. SABO: You're welcome. Go to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question, Madam Chair. You eliminated our lights, I think. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I looked. You didn't touch; now you are. Yes, Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Were you done? Commissioner Solis, I think he had more than one question. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I've got some more questions, but I think it's going to be back for Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I do have a question of staff. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Either one of you. I just wanted -- I heard some representations made by the developer with regard to trip cap counts, and I want to talk about enforceability of those trip caps that are represented. I think they represented -- I don't want to say it out loud. MR. YOVANOVICH: One thirty-two. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One thirty-two. One thirty-four is what I had in my mind. How do we -- how do we, as a group, enforce those trip cap counts? MS. JENKINS: There's Trinity. They have modified the PUD document, Commissioner, as represented here and, further than that, I'll let Trinity answer your question. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I have one more for you after that. Hello. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. For the record, Trinity Scott, March 1, 2021 Page 87 Collier County Transportation Planning Manager. The question is how do we enforce the trip cap. So when an applicant comes in for their Site Development Plan or their plats and plans, they submit a new Traffic Impact Statement that is based on the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual. We look at that p.m. peak hour peak number based on the new manual and compare that back to this number. Sometimes the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the type of unit that they would be proposing may go up. If it goes up, they're only able to build as many units as they can and stay under this trip count. If by chance the trip count goes down, they're still bound by the PUD on the maximum number of units that they can build. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Maybe I didn't ask the question properly. We're built, we're developed, and this trip cap is exceeded. MS. SCOTT: The trip cap is looked at at the time of the SDP or PPL. We do not go back out after the fact and take traffic counts to see if it's been exceeded or not. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So this representation is for and until the SDP and construction's completed, after which there's a myriad of circumstances that could vary the actual trips? MS. SCOTT: That's the case in everything that we do. We use the industry standards of the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the basis of our review. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do have some questions for staff. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have another question. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had two questions. One for March 1, 2021 Page 88 her and one for them, and then I'll be done. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Go ahead. No, no. Take your time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Anita or -- either one. There were ultimate -- there was a myriad of representations by the developer of improvements to the parking garage, traffic light, so on and so forth. Are the time constraints which those are to be performed in the PUD doc itself? MS. JENKINS: Let me confirm that for you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. JENKINS: I'll confer. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the -- just another parking question. The parking for the -- oh, they're huddling. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They all went to a huddle. MS. SCOTT: If I may, I can actually answer Commissioner McDaniel's. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. MS. SCOTT: They must be completed by the first certificate of occupancy, and it's in the PUD language and the transportation commitments. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Trinity? Ms. Scott, don't run away yet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the parking for the commercial -- the commercial, the deli, coffee shop, where's the parking for that going to be? Whoever. Anyone. Anyone. Bueller? MS. JENKINS: I like that movie. It's going to be underneath our structure. March 1, 2021 Page 89 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I correct one thing, though, that Trinity just said? The PUD does say that the traffic signal, the parking garage, and the turn lane with the parking garage and the turn lane on Vanderbilt Beach Road are at CO, but we committed earlier that that would -- those would move up to prior to vertical construction. So we have to make that change. We had said that earlier, so I just want to make sure the record's clear. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the parking is on -- maybe on the first floor or whatever it's going to be in the parking garage. Okay. Has staff had a chance to review the parking analysis that's been provided that we saw today? MR. SABO: I can answer that. For the record, James Sabo. The parking calculations, Commissioner Solis, are done at Site Development Plan; however, we did -- we did have and do have the LDC definitions for how the parking is calculated and number of spaces for guests and whatnot. Those -- they're all required to meet the LDC standards for parking calculations. So whatever the LDC says they need -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's just a mathematical calculation. MR. SABO: Just a mathematical calculation. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But then my other question was about the traffic analysis. I don't know if that's probably a Trinity question. MS. SCOTT: And if I may, we actually have more staff presentation that may actually answer some of your questions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, okay. MS. SCOTT: We have a traffic -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'll put that off then. March 1, 2021 Page 90 Here is some zoning questions, and that is, can we put up the site plan again? Because now with the DaRuMa piece, I mean, it does change what the setbacks mean on some of this, right? Because instead of being a setback from property owned by somebody else, now it's set back to the developer's own property. And so I just want to make some sense out of what that's going to mean. MR. SABO: Do we have that up? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the -- MR. SABO: MU Tract -- MU Tract 2, which is down on the lower right -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. SABO: -- that 10-foot setback on Center Street, essentially, now is set back against their own property, you are correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So that's not necessarily going to impact a neighbor. The setback on the MU2 tract on the east side, I guess, is still -- they're still on South Bay right there. They're still requesting 10 feet there? MR. SABO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And then the setbacks along where Vanderbilt Palms is right under the pen there, right there, the setbacks from MU1 to the Vanderbilt Palms piece. I'm trying to see what that says. That says 10 or 15? MR. SABO: Those are -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are they all from MU -- MR. SABO: They're 15 -- it's a 15-foot Type B buffer. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And what is that now under the C-3? MR. SABO: I would have to -- I'd have to research it real quick and get back to you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. March 1, 2021 Page 91 MR. SABO: In terms of the buffer requirement or the setback requirement? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no. That's a 15-foot Type B buffer. I was asking about the setback. MR. SABO: Okay. I can hear Mr. Yovanovich talking. He may -- he may have a number that he wishes us to use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I answer? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. Anybody. Bueller. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where you're pointing to, this right here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, we can agree to 25 feet there, because there's no structures there. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You'll agree to 25 feet there? MR. YOVANOVICH: For structures, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So we'll make a note of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the setback adjacent to Vanderbilt Palms is going to go from 10 -- I don't know what it was. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm sorry. Could you get a little closer to your mic. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry, yes. The setback adjacent to Vanderbilt Palms, then, is going to go to 25; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, which I think it already is, but we'll make it clear that that's 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It's still 10 feet along South Bay Drive. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You're still asking for 10 feet there March 1, 2021 Page 92 and 10 feet for -- along South Bay Drive on MU [sic] and M3? MR. YOVANOVICH: On 2 -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And 2 as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: Two, 3, and 4, correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Staff, as a matter of planning and zoning, I mean, the setback now to developer's internally owned property doesn't really make any difference, correct? Is that -- are you in agreement with that? MR. SABO: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. That's all I had. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a question for Ms. Scott and then a question for our staff as well. On those internal streets there, my assumption would be that with the new traffic light and the improvements to the roadways there, that there would not be much cut-through traffic through there. Would you expect that, or would those -- the South Bay would be used really only by the people that live in that area? I mean, there would be no advantage to cutting through, I would think. MS. SCOTT: The only time I would anticipate if somebody was going to cut through is if the traffic signal -- you know, during holiday times, things like that, you're going to have people kind of moving around, you know, having multiple options. And that's really what we want. We want people to have options to be able to get around. And with South Bay, they'll have significant improvements over what it is today with the sidewalks on both sides, the closed drainage, as well as the bike lanes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was my -- yeah, that was my next question. On South Bay there will be sidewalks an d -- MS. SCOTT: And bike lanes, yes. March 1, 2021 Page 93 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So just from a traffic standpoint, the 10-foot versus 25-foot setback would be somewhat irrelevant, just from your traffic standpoint? MS. SCOTT: From a traffic standpoint, no, we would not get into the setbacks. They're -- we have no plans to widen that roadway, you know, to four lanes in the future. That would be when Transportation would get into whether or not the setback was okay or not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And then for staff, just a quick question. The existing properties along South Bay, what setbacks do they have? MR. SABO: They're all about 25. Barefoot Pelican is 25, and the Sotheby's Real Estate is 25. Vanderbilt Palms is 25. So they -- there's a consistency of 25 along that street. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I think our questions are seceded [sic] for a moment. MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins, for the record. Again, before we move on to the environmental, I just wanted to also make you aware of one more commitment that we hope to hear from the petitioner on. During lunch, we -- given public accesses is sometimes confusing when attorneys make statements on the record that we have to go back and look at -- that's not in the PUD document. We're asking for a commitment that the commercial access remain public access and that commitment be put in the PUD document. So at no time would they decide to limit the access to those commercial uses, that they provide just to the residents with key cards. So that would be a commitment that they would maintain that for the public. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to answer that now? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That was the intent, right? March 1, 2021 Page 94 MR. YOVANOVICH: Our commitment from day one was that the coffee shop, deli, you know, the sundry store, and the real estate office were always open to the public. There was never an intention to privatize that. So if we need to put that commitment in th e PUD, we're happy to put that in the PUD. MS. COOK: Good afternoon. Jaime Cook, Principal Environmental Specialist with the Development Review Division. The proposed GMP amendment and the PUD rezoning petition were reviewed by environmental planning staff for compliance with the environmental regulations in both the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. The site was cleared of native vegetation prior to 1962, which staff's able to confirm through historical aerial imagery. Most of the vegetation that currently exists on site was used -- was planted to meet landscaping requirements for the various uses on the property. The environmental consultant provided a vegetation inventory currently existing on the site, which was verified by staff during a field site visit. 0.11 acres of native vegetation exists on site, and the applicant is required to preserve 0.03 acres of vegetation by the LDC regulations, which they are proposing to do through offsite preservation. The applicant is not proposing any lakes, so there's no littoral plantings required. And then the marina, the slip counts, and compliance with the Manatee Protection Plan are all reviewed through a consistency determination at the time of the site -- at time of site development. That concludes the environmental review unless any of you have any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have some questions. Have we addressed sea level rise in terms of the concern of tidal flooding, especially on the back bays? Have we discussed, as they are on the March 1, 2021 Page 95 East Coast, increasing seawall? MS. COOK: That is one of the things that we request in their environmental review at time of site development. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You request. MS. COOK: We would require them to submit it to us at site development, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Are they going to be required to raise up the seawalls? MS. COOK: Perhaps they would be. It would depend on what that analysis determines. They would also have to go through DEP permitting for all of this because they are seaward of the coastal construction control line. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Jaime. Next, we'll look at utility review and Eric Fey. MR. FEY: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Eric Fey, Principal Project Manager with Public Utilities. The slide on screen shows a screen capture from our utilities GIS. The project lies in the Vanderbilt Beach Center subdivision which first got utility services back in 1977. At that time, a 6-inch asbestos water main was run along South Bay Drive, a 2-inch water main was run along Gulf Shore Court and Center Street, and 8-inch water main ran along Vanderbilt Beach Road. In 1991, the 2-inch water main on Center Street and the 8-inch water main on Vanderbilt Beach Road were replaced with the current 16-inch water transmission main, which is our primary concern during utilities review for this project, given that the Center Street or portion of Center Street and Gulf Shore Court right-of-ways were being vacated and will be occupied by the building on Mixed-Use Tract 1. So as you can see labeled on screen, we're anticipating that the March 1, 2021 Page 96 16-inch water main will be reconnected, re-routed at the new entrance across from the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage for wastewater. The Center Street and Gulf Shore Court sewer runs up to South Bay Drive and then heads west to Gulf Shore Drive. It was determined during our analysis that that subbasin doesn't have the capacity for this project, so one of the developer commitments is to send all of the wastewater flow now to the southeast. We have a gravity sewer on Vanderbilt Beach Road that they will tie into with a new pump station and force main. Obviously, we were concerned about maintaining service to our existing customers as designated by the yellow stars; there are four of them. Obviously, with DaRuMa being acquired by the applicant, that's no longer a concern. But the Barefoot Pelican will continue t o flow west, as will the northern portion of Vanderbilt Palms. I'm sorry, Vanderbilt Palms will continue to flow west, as will the northern portion of Barefoot Pelican. The southern portion of Barefoot Pelican and the real estate office, that will be captured by a new pump station on the project site and will be routed with the project flow to the southeast, which flows eventually up Vanderbilt Drive and is handled by, eventually, Master Pump Station 101. So we analyzed all of that, and obviously at the time we analyzed, the unit count was higher than it was today, so we have no concerns about wastewater system capacity. I believe the applicant addressed the commitments that have been made. I'll just touch on those again. When the right-of-way as designated by the dark red hatch is vacated, we will be given a temporary county utility easement and access easement which will allow us to maintain our existing facilities until such time as the utilities are relocated and preliminary acceptance is achieved. March 1, 2021 Page 97 Likewise, it was mentioned that on Mixed -Use Tract 1, no vertical construction will take place until those new utilities are accepted and the replacement county utility easement recorded in the public record. As an ancillary benefit of the project -- you know, this isn't before you today -- the right-of-way permit includes additional utility improvements to serve the project. That six-inch asbestos cement water main on South Bay Drive that I mentioned earlier is scheduled to be replaced by a 10-inch PVC water main. So that is a substantial benefit to the Collier County Water/Sewer District. It's not a commitment in the PUD, but it has been submitted by the applicant as part of their right-of-way permit. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Question, Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Are any of the public utility upgrades that you just discussed or anything maybe you didn't discuss going to be the responsibility of the county, or everything has been agreed to by the applicant or they are going to agree to it? Just in summation. MR. FEY: Yes. Commissioner, the improvements will be fully developer funded. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it. Thank you. MR. FEY: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon, again. For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager. The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Statement that's consistent with our adopted TIS guidelines. The TIS was reviewed to determine consistency as defined in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. March 1, 2021 Page 98 I will note that our review was based on a higher number of units, and so with the applicant reducing the number of units, it would not change our recommendation of approval for the project, as it would be less traffic on the roadway. For all Traffic Impact Statements, we look at p.m. peak hour/peak direction traffic volumes, and those capacities are utilized. The TIS presented a reasonable scenario which established a maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD, which is now going to be 132 two-way peak-hour net trips instead of the previously established 148 based on the higher unit count. As I noted previously, that trip cap will be tracked during the Site Development Plan when the applicant comes forward. The project is also within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, which is a special area -- we have two of those within the county -- that allow for an exemption from link-by-link concurrency should it be necessary; however, for consistency purposes, there is adequate capacity available in the network to address the project traffic. This is an excerpt from our 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report. On Vanderbilt Beach Road, there are 462 remaining trips. I'll also note that based on the 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Report, there are 367 still remaining. So Vanderbilt Beach Road can still accommodate the project traffic. Gulf Shore Drive has 500 remaining p.m. peak hour/peak direction trips based on the 2019 AUIR, and the 2020 has 490. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question. The -- so the -- this is p.m., right? This is p.m.? MS. SCOTT: P.m. peak hour/peak direction. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the total right now with this -- on Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive is -- what has it been reduced to, or has it been? March 1, 2021 Page 99 MS. SCOTT: There are four hundred and -- based on the latest Annual Update and Inventory Report, there are 367 remaining trips. And their PUD has a total of 132 which will be split from a directional standpoint. So only a portion of those will go on Vanderbilt Beach Road, but there is adequate capacity on Vanderbilt Beach Road. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's my understanding, then, there would be no capacity on these two roads for any kind of commercial development as the C-3 defines based on the trips that were quoted earlier, if I copied them down correctly. MS. SCOTT: So if the commercial were to come forward, because they are within the Transportation Concurrency Management Area, they could ask to be exempt from link-by-link concurrency. By doing that, they would have to provide multiple transportation demand management strategies, which would include providing -- there's a myriad of things. One of them is allowing for telecommuting, flexible work schedules, preferred parking for carpools and van pools, those type of things. So they would still be able to move forward with the commercial even if there was not adequate capacity on the roadway because we are maintaining more than 90 percent of the capacity within the Transportation Concurrency Management Area. More than 90 percent of those roadways are operating at an acceptable level of service. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But this corner would not be. MS. SCOTT: It may not be. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It may not be. And so it would be greatly restricted in terms of -- let me put it this way: You can market it as commercial, but you'd have to tell folks they'd have to talk to the county first about -- depending on the commercial that is being put there. MS. SCOTT: They would still be able to move forward March 1, 2021 Page 100 coming in with a Site Development Plan, from a transportation standpoint, by utilizing the tools that are already available to them. Within our Growth Management Plan, we would not ask for a reduction of what would be allowed on that site today based on the rules that are available to them in our current Growth Management Plan of the Transportation Concurrency Management Area. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: In addition to the capacity analysis that we did, we required an operational study for this zoning request. County staff, including Anthony Khawaja, who's our Chief Traffic Operations Engineer, and Tom Ross, who's a Professional Engineer from Jacobs Engineering, who you've heard from, I'm sure, multiple times in the past, they assist us with our outside peer review of all Traffic Impact Statements. They worked with the applicant -- we worked with the applicant as a team to perform operational analysis within the area. And now I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Ross for specific information. MR. ROSS: Good afternoon. Can you hear me? MS. SCOTT: Yes, Tom. We can. MR. RODRIGUEZ: All right. Thank you. For the record, Tom Ross, Traffic Engineer with Jacobs Engineering representing county staff. So the current operational conditions, the two main areas that cause queuing that occurs right now during the peak periods or in peak season, one location is due to the delay at the intersection at Gulf Shore Drive due to the high pedestrian volume and the pedestrians crossing the street, and the other is the delay at the parking garage due to the payment process system where they have to actually pay before they can actually enter the garage, and this causes a queue in the left-turn lane, and also occurs when the garage is full March 1, 2021 Page 101 and they close the garage temporarily. On the next slide, we received the analysis files that the applicant provided to us for our review, and from that we took this snapshot of the current conditions. And you can see the queuing that occurs all the way back up through Vanderbilt Drive. And just so you note, this is actually at real speed. It might be four times, I believe, but it's not the same speed that the applicant showed previously. The next slide is a summary of the -- of the developer commitments that were offered. They include the installation of the traffic signal at Gulf Shore Drive, and this would have -- the applicant also considered looking at a roundabout, but this offers -- the traffic signal offers an advantage in that the signal will provide a dedicated phase for pedestrians to cross at the intersection. This will allow time for vehicles to get through the intersection as well as the pedestrians, as opposed to no control where the -- once the pedestrians enter into the intersection, including even a roundabout, all traffic has to stop and yield to them by state law. So the roundabout, while it offers some benefits, it wouldn't address the pedestrian demand and would continue to see the queuing issues along Vanderbilt Beach Road. Other commitments included extending the left -turn lane into the county parking garage, design installation of signs to notify the public when the garage parking available is full, and also improvements to South Bay Drive including roadside swales and addition of a turn lane on westbound Vanderbilt Beach Road to Gulf Shore Drive. In addition to the technology at the garage, as you heard earlier, the applicant has committed to doing improvements to the garage parking payment system, and this would eliminate the delay at the entry point, and this would help improve that queue. March 1, 2021 Page 102 And so one of the other things -- and you'll see in the simulation you'll see that the result is, is that the queues are significantly reduced with the proposed conditions. And one thing I would note is that the Vanderbilt Beach project also has one of their entrances aligned with the parking garage entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road. This was brought up during the Planning Commission hearing, and there was some concern about this location being offered. But staff has reviewed this location, and we have no concerns with it, primarily because this would create a four-way intersection, which is a very common -- probably one of the most common intersection configurations, and drivers are very familiar with these and know how to navigate these very well, and once the parking improvements to the garage have been implemented, that will help to reduce that delay in the left -turn lane, and it will operate similar to any other four-way intersection. The other thing to note is that this is only one of several access points for the One Naples development. All the other access points are onto South Bay Drive by which they could access either Vanderbilt Beach Road or Gulf Shore Drive. So if the delay becomes too much for the folks to leave One Naples, take a left turn during those high-peak periods, they could simply use another route. And that concludes the Transportation presentation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I don't have any questions. Oh, I do. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick one. And I found that moving video fascinating, because with the -- because, again, the traffic's been a big consideration, and with the traffic light installation, the most I saw during that time lapse was four or five cars stacked up at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt. Nothing -- I mean, it was clear back past Vanderbilt Drive without -- as it sits today. MS. SCOTT: It certainly is a combination of multiple March 1, 2021 Page 103 improvements with the traffic signal allowing us to queue up the pedestrians and have them cross to where they're not just streaming across, as well those improvements to the parking garage and changing the payment collection, because that certainly is another big delay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't notice a whole bunch streaming into the parking garages that weren't able to do that before, so it's a combination of both of those. So thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. And now I will turn it over to Matt McLean to discuss the right-of-way vacation. MR. McLEAN: Good afternoon. Matt McLean, Development Review Director for Growth Management. I'm here to talk today about the right-of-way vacation application before you this afternoon. As you see here on the slide here, you can identify the area that is hatched as the existing right-of-way to be vacated, which includes Gulf Shore Court, the alley which connects to Gulf Shore Court, as well as a portion of Center Street. This particular right-of-way was established by the Board of County Commissioners in January of 1954 under Plat Book 3, Page 16, of the Vanderbilt Beach Center plat. The subset area off to the right, you can see an area in yellow which is proposed by the applicant to be the reconnection roadway to reconnect South Bay Drive back to Vanderbilt Beach Road to line up with the county's parking garage. You've heard by several of my colleagues today about some of the public benefits relative to this particular application, including the traffic signalization at the intersection of Gulf Bay and Vanderbilt Beach Road, the beach parking garage technology and other upgrades, landscape, utility, roadway and drainage, street lighting upgrades and improvements within this area as well. March 1, 2021 Page 104 The right-of-way vacation application established policies and procedures under Resolution 2013-166 as well as Florida Statutes were reviewed by staff. All those application documents and the public benefits identified put staff in a position to recommend approval of right-of-way vacation application, including those commitments that you heard from our Utilities Department as far as continuing to retain temporary utility easements as well as temporary access easements while those infrastructure improvements are relocated into the area in yellow that you see on the slide. I don't have anything further for today, so if you have any questions for me; otherwise I'll be happy to turn it over to Pam Lulich to talk about the landscape maintenance agreement. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seeing none, thank you. MS. LULICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager. The landscape maintenance agreement is between Collier County and Vanderbilt Naples Holding, LLC. It's applicable to developer-funded improvements in the right-of-way adjacent to the One Naples development. The improvements are on Gulf Shore Drive, South Bay Drive, Center Street, and Vanderbilt Beach Road. So the developer will be responsible for the installation, maintenance, and replacement of landscaping and irrigation; decorative street lighting, bollards, decorative sign posts, concrete sidewalks, and brick pavers, and any -- any asphalt abutting those brick pavers; benches, decorative trash receptacles, and street furnishings. There are two exhibits to the agreement. Schedule A are the approved landscape and irrigation plans prepared by the Florida licensed landscape architect and approved street lighting and construction documents. The plans -- the landscape and irrigation plans have FDOT March 1, 2021 Page 105 sightlines on them. There's no obstructions within those sightlines or clear sight distances. The street lighting includes both decorative and non-decorative lighting. The non-decorative lighting is the standard aluminum cobra-type lighting, excuse me, on Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The decorative is closer to the development and is 12 feet on overall height. Schedule B is the approved maintenance and replacement specifications which match the drawings. I'm so nervous. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good job. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Commissioner LoCastro? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, is there a specificity -- right here. Is there specificity on the landscape on, like, the heights of trees and things like that for the record? I mean, the drawings show, you know, Royal Palms that are, you know, fully grown and mature but, you know, I want to make sure that saplings aren't planted. Is there -- MS. LULICH: No. There isn't any requirement, but in the specifications you have a spec sheet with Royals being 28 feet overall. Alexanders at 25 feet. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MS. LULICH: So that's what will be built. That's what's approved. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MS. LULICH: So -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Got it, thanks. MS. LULICH: So with that, I'd like to introduce James Sabo, Planning Manager, who will go over the recommendatio ns. MS. JENKINS: Come on up, James. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Anita's like, come on. March 1, 2021 Page 106 MS. JENKINS: Well, I'm kind of wondering if I need to look at these recommendations, because they may be a little bit different. So let me just say that our recommendation is for approval of the applications that you have before you today. Where we have the minimal differences between what has been presented today and staff is just that little bit of setback where they're not facing their internal property and facing other buildings. And I think that that would conclude our presentation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the height. MS. JENKINS: No. We're good on the height now. After we reviewed the height at the lunch hour, we're good on that recognizing the difference in the FEMA elevations from Regatta to the proposal today. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So at this point I believe our developer or applicant comes back? I believe that's the way this works? MR. KLATZKOW: Unless Mr. Yovanovich wants to cross-examine. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't have any questions of your staff. Could I just make one point on the exhibit, if that's okay. Based upon what Anita just said, I just want to -- it's just this one portion right here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Go to the mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Tract 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- I think that's the segment that we're asking for a 10-foot setback versus the staff recommended 25 where we're putting the enhanced landscaping, we're enclosing the drainage, and we also have a letter of support from Vanderbilt Palms. So that's -- I think that's the only -- the only area that staff had March 1, 2021 Page 107 originally recommended 25 feet that we're still at the 10 feet that's not across from our own controlled property. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: There was a -- Tract 2 had a loose end, I thought, on the south portion that parallels South Bay Drive. I think you were agreeing to a 10-foot setback on that small little part there, and they want 25; is that correct? Yeah, right there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe so, but that was across from a commercial parcel that I don't think you have received any objections from the commercial parcel. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's a commercial parcel. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where the Premier Sotheby's is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sotheby's. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I just wanted to make sure that we were all under the same agreement. I don't have any questions of your staff, and I guess whatever your procedure is, if we're going to the public now; I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a couple of questions. Are there any gates? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. This is the -- the road that you see that's going through and connecting -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: South Bay? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, South Bay remains totally open and so does the road, the replacement road that we're putting in to connect -- or to be across from your parking garage is a public road. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. But the proposed DaRuMa park is not open to the public? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. That's going to be an amenity for the One Naples project, but there are no -- there are no gates on the roads to prohibit the public from freely traversing the road system -- the road network. March 1, 2021 Page 108 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How do you propose to signify that this is not open to the public when you look and see it from the road? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll probably put a nice decorative fence around there and control the access for the residents with key fob or -- there will be controlled access for our residents. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And will the waterfront be open for people to walk on, public? MR. YOVANOVICH: Waterfront? You know, I don't know the answer to that question. Let me -- I'll check, if you don't mind, during a break, and I'll come back up or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would assume it's a continuous boardwalk. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I don't know is I don't know if you can access it now from Barefoot Pelican. So I don't know if you can -- there's already that public walk-around or not, to be honest with you. I just don't know the answer to that right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But is it -- again, I don't mean to beat a -- be persistent, but at least on the part that Barefoot Pelican doesn't front, is that -- are you intending to leave that open for the public? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer. I need to talk to Mr. Stock about that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I think the intent is it will be private since it's their private waterfront and their private docks, and we'll want to have some security over that, but there are some -- there are -- as you know, we have four transient docks, and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the ship store and the fueling will still remain open to the public, but I don't know that -- I don't think we intended for the walkway behind the buildings to be open to the public. March 1, 2021 Page 109 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've got a quick one here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Not to pepper you with little things, but it's part of the topic. The three transient docks, are they just basically for refueling? It's not for tie-up or anything? So it's come in, refuel, and leave? MR. YOVANOVICH: We actually have a couple of captains that operate out of there right now, and we wanted to provide them the opportunity to continue with their business operations for them to have -- charter captains. So a couple of those are for the charter captains and also to tie up and fuel and get their ship supplies and then leave. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Have you thought any more -- and not that this is, you know, a mitigating factor here or anything, but you know, three of 75 just seems like a small number, you know, especially -- it's a very convenient place for people to pull up and get gas and whatnot. And like you said, if you've got, you know, two of the three transient docks are filled by two captains who use it permanently, practically, being able to have the general public be able to still, you know, have access to that area and go into the marina, shop, and come out. And just -- I'm not here trying to amend anything, but I just didn't know in your conversations -- three of 75 seems like a really small number. They fill up quick, lik e you said, especially when you've got captains using it permanently. Just a thought. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll talk about that, if you don't mind, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: Any other questions before I walk away? March 1, 2021 Page 110 (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I think now's the time for us to hear from the public, and we'll start with folks representing different groups. You will have a -- MR. STUART: Five minutes. MR. MILLER: Yeah, Commissioner Taylor, what he's gesturing to is they need to set up things, some displays, and I think he's asking for a brief intermission. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Why don't we -- we're about 15 minutes off of when we give Terri a break. Let's break and gather back here at 2:15, please. This clock. (A brief recess was had from 1:54 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. It's my intention to hear from the leaderships of the different communities that are allowed 15 minutes. I believe there are just two after this presentation. And then we are going to recess and convene again tomorrow for the public comment. That will give the planning staff time to go through that strikethrough and underline PUD document that has been presented as of today, also to create a chart so that we can see clearly what this project is today, which it wasn't yesterday or, let's put it this way, it certainly wasn't the last time staff saw it, and that would help us with clarity up here. Not that staff has done -- hasn't done that. It's just a very difficult situation when we came to this meeting expecting one project and found out it was a very different one. So at this point, I think we're going to start with -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we should start -- go through this process, but I don't think we should recess at 3:30. I March 1, 2021 Page 111 think we should start the public comment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I would like to recess, but if you would like to -- anyone else like to speak to this, let me know. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm okay with going forward. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I just think, you know, we have the right people here, and, you know, I mean, I think you stay here till the job's done. I think if we hit a roadblock at 4:00 or 5:00 or something like that or something massive, but I think 3:30's sort of an early artificial start [sic]. I mean, I know what you're trying to say and do by scheduling it, but I'd say we press. And if we hit something that we think, you know, we need to take a break, but I don't think artificially setting 3:30, especially when people I know are here to be heard, and we're here to hear them. So I don't know. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I agree. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I guess I could take a -- the chairman's prerogative, but at this point to bring forward peace and collegiality, I will bow to the will of my board, but understanding that when you're sitting in a meeting for as long as I think we're going to be sitting, to be able to discuss this at the end of the meeting is going to be a little more difficult. So if we do -- if we do proceed, if we do push forward, then at 5:00 we are going to take a break, and that break will be for dinner, a dinner hour, and then we will come back after that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, with all due respect -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, now we don't have to have dinner? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It seems like this is just an effort to prolong this. March 1, 2021 Page 112 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, sir. It's not an effort to prolong it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And you really do not have the prerogative to adjourn this board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With all due respect -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Listen, we're here to do the people's work. So let's just press forward, I say. We've got someone at the podium that's ready to be heard, and I'm read y to hear him. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And excuse me, Ms. Terri, an hour-and-a-half is about it for you, right, and you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Okay. Yes, you may start. MR. STUART: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, fellow commissioners, the public, staff, everyone involved in this project. Greg Stuart, for the record. I'm a qualified expert in urban regional planning, zoning, urban design, and real estate land development. My qualifications have been accepted by the Board, and they are Exhibit 1 in the exhibit book that I passed out. The presentation in front of you, obviously, is now modified because of this morning's revised development conditions. I did submit a copy for the record, so you have a formal paper copy. What I would like to do is figure out how to use this. On the advice of our counsel reflecting the threatened slap a suit against my client, I need to read that the presentation is One Naples, 3D architecture and site plan graphics are Stuart & Associate renderings of approximate building height, mass, scale, and placement, and they're based upon the applicant's adjacent building separation and height exhibits May 18th; One Naples site plans with dimensions, May 28th; also the development standards that were submitted March 1, 2021 Page 113 January of this year, 2021. The landscape and architect treatment are for scale and height evaluation only and do not represent the applicant's landscape and architectural plans. I would like to just jump headlong into Mr. Yovanovich's criticism of our approach on the project. Specifically, a 15-foot landscape strip is a very least effective tool for mandated compatibility. They are now presenting a 25-foot setback. I'm not sure if that's going to be an entire 25-foot landscape strip, or is it going to be 15 feet. But what you want to do is look at this. Look at the hierarchy of compatibility. Clearly, uses; clearly, intensity; clearly, the site plan are the fundamental backbone of determining Comprehensive Plan compatibility. They are. Now, we have no objection whatsoever about the uses. In fact, what they're proposing, a mixed -use development is highest and best use of the property, we don't have a bone to pick with that. Oh, and, I'm sorry. For the record, I rep resent Regatta and Save Vanderbilt Beach. I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that. But the intensity and the plan itself, i.e., the placement of the buildings, the relationship -- the relationship of the setbacks, height, and building mass are the foundations of determining Comprehensive Plan compatibility, not landscape architecture. When you look at the hierarchy, the next thing would be the actual building height and mass. And, personally, I'm pleased that they have slightly reduced the building height. They haven't really done anything with the mass, but those are elements of compatibility. The third element, as you go up the hierarchy, is architecture. Of course, they have yet to submit their architectural plans. Everything that you've seen are illustrations. They're March 1, 2021 Page 114 non-regulatory. They're nonbinding. This is why it was so important to me when I sent the "gaps in the records" brief to you to point out that staff had the discretionary authority to say, give us architectural elevations with street crawl sections, and they didn't. So there's no way I can even make a case about whether it's compatible architectural-wise. And then, finally, the landscape architecture. Yes, that is a transitioning. It's a softening. It's an element of compatibility, but it in no way, shape, or form supersedes the fundamentals of use, intensity, plan, building height, and mass. And it's just factually correct. Now, in front of you -- and, again, this has changed somewhat because of the recently revised developer commitments. But what you have in front of you is a full-scale mockup showing at 30 feet and 35 feet. It's important to point out that the development standard table -- that is what you are approving -- the applicant's Exhibit B, states clearly it's a 35-foot, you know, parking garage. So what we did is annotate 30 feet, but it is a 35-foot structure. What's interesting in this slide is that on the right slide what I did was Photoshop an existing mature tree and slid it next to the wall. And the point on this slide is that, granted, the annotation is at 15 feet, now it is at 25 feet, but when you're using landscape architect to soften something this massive and this structure -- and I have to state on the record -- and this is obvious -- there is nothing like this -- in Collier County or in Lee County. An entire city block dominated by such a parking garage. So what I was hopeful to get across to you is the verticality and the relationship of that to the canyonization. Now, this also gets into Tony Pires' discussion, and Mr. Yovanovich made a comment about that. I'm showing the original submittal. All of the applicant's submittals and the staff data March 1, 2021 Page 115 and analysis are based on an analysis of two towers. The model doesn't depict anything but the two towers, yet when you are looking at the development standards -- and I just got a copy of the most recent stuff, you know, a few hours ago -- I still don't see an explicit condition that limits the site to one tower. I don't. And I would certainly think that that would be appropriate. What you are being asked to do is approve the bubble plan, the top left plan. And as Mr. Yovanovich stated in the planning and zoning hearing, you're going to get what we are presenting today. We're not doing a bait and switch. And then following up, Anita Jenkins, a few days ago, can the applicant build one big tower? And her response is yes. And my point is, this demonstrates a lack of regulatory structure and professional approach in tying in what has been made in a public presentation to the actual regulatory document. I think that unto itself is an easy cure. I think that's something that, hey, let's write a condition and link it explicit ly. Again, it may be in there, it may be a footnote, but I don't see it. I would like to point out, in addition to the one big tower option -- which, again, I see they had the right to -- they also have the right to do waterfront restaurants. And I point that out because there's no geographic limitation on their restaurant. They made oral presentations where it's going to be, but there's no restriction. And that's important because Stock Development company does great stuff, but they are not a high-rise builder. They'll probably do a JV with some high-rise development company. They may, may not. I'm speculating. But the point is, if I was doing this project, a waterfront restaurant or two would be pretty keen. And if that's the case, there should be operating hour restrictions, amplified music restrictions, and a bunch of other things. So, again, there's just no tie-in to what I'm seeing. March 1, 2021 Page 116 Finally, to follow up on my February 24th letter to Ms. Jenkins -- and she responded to that, and I do appreciate that. But Ms. Jenkins was in error when she stated that, well, staff didn't agree that this was not feasible, i.e., the 15-foot optional setback. On Page 21 and 22 of the transcripts that I sent to you, October 15th, staff clearly stated in writing, yeah, this is doable. This is completely doable. It may be costly, but it's doable. So I don't understand how Ms. Jenkins can come up to you and say, well, you know, during the planning and zoning hearing, we agreed that it was not doable. In fact, it was. And then, finally, if you review the transcripts, there is no evidence whatsoever that the planning commissioners voted for anything other than height, and that was on a -- that went south on a 3-3. I forget what the standard was. They didn't discuss in depth the wedding cake approach. There was no consensus. There was -- there was no discussion. So, again, I'm really surprised and disappointed because -- I may be old school. I believe when you reach an agreement, you don't have to bring an attorney and do something formal. Handshake. Your word of honor. And, again, I represent over 1,600 people. We supported staff. At the 11th hour staff has changed their conditions. We can no longer support staff fully, but I'll get into that. And it's unfortunate, because if you look in my exhibit package book, Exhibit 9, we had a much more thorough, comprehensive set of standards. And as one example, a 30-foot setback instead of 25 feet. But my clients wanted to work with staff and try to come together and find consensus, so we agreed to do a 25-foot setback and support staff when, in fact, best professional standards absolutely mandate a minimal 30-foot setback. So I wanted to -- and please don't -- Ms. Jenkins, don't believe that I'm beating up. I'm not beating up, but it is a little frustrating. March 1, 2021 Page 117 So the bottom line is this. This is the sole question; not how much traffic and a hypothetical commercial development's going to cause. This is the only question in front of you, the fundamental issue. Is this Growth Management Plan sound public policy? That's it, you know. And density is the problem, because before they were doubling the density. Now they're coming in at 161 percent. So they're not doubling the density. And, again, that's all right. But staff is still ignoring the problem is the density that's driving the noncompatible building development. And as an example, the density driving demand. Parking demand drives the need for this big, 'ole monolithic parking garage. The requested density is driving the setbacks. And as an example, the 25-foot waterfront setback that is the minimal code requirement, applicant's coming in at zero. The reason why the applicant wants zero, the reason why the applicant still wants 10 feet is that by having the minimal amount of setbacks possible, you're maximizing the availability of the site to support the densities. So, again -- and it gets to open space. Why is there a lack of an open-space table that explicitly designates where the open space is and what percentage is common, which is a Collier County requirement. You know, and the reason is, they want to get away with doing as much rooftop non-common open space as possible. And, clearly, if you look at the code -- and I sent you documentation -- the code for open space defines open space as, quote-unquote, areas not occupied by buildings. So to me, being a simple guy that just reads English, and if i t says it can't be on top of a building, it can't be on top of a building. And so the deficiency in the application is where's the open space? So that ties back into the density, because the reason why they're pushing the open-space issue, they're kicking that can down the March 1, 2021 Page 118 road -- and staff's gone along with it -- is they want to maximize the site, and that's just as simple as I can make it. Now, I am glad that -- somewhat that the applicant has backed off on using Pelican Bay as their density and building height comps. In my exhibit book, you will notice an October 30th, 2020, letter from the Pelican Bay Foundation stating, hey, Pelican Bay is completely distinct and separate from the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road. We agree with Pelican Bay, an d I believe staff agrees with Pelican Bay -- with the Pelican Bay letter. That's because they kind of came up with reasonable conditions. So Pelican Bay just can't be used as comps. It doesn't make any sense. I think the applicant's testimony was, hey, well, from this site, we can look over there, and we can see high-rise buildings, and, you know, that's like saying I'm in Little Italy in Manhattan, and I'm looking up and seeing the Empire State Building and, therefore, I live in Midtown. It doesn't work like that. A neighborhood is a defined cohesive entity. And for a Comprehensive Plan, complementary -- complementary and compatibility findings, you have to base it on adjoining and adjacent properties within the context of a reasonable market area, and the reasonable market area is defined in yellow. Now, it is interesting that the applicant today has pointed out, hey, you know, we've got Vanderbilt Palms at 52 units per acre, and Vanderbilt Hideaway at 53 units per acre. Yeah, but they're outliers. Those two projects are half-acre properties or less. Half-acre properties or less. Their average unit size is around 500 square feet. Do you use those for comps? Of course not. But professional planning approach would be to throw out the outliers, and I threw out both the outliers both high and low. I'm not using, you know, the two-story multifamily. You throw out outliers to get a better understanding of March 1, 2021 Page 119 what the neighborhood conditions are when you're determining complementary development and compatible development. So when I see -- let me see now. The applicant now is at 140 units at 25.8 units per acre. 25.8 units per acre. That's the density. The neighborhood average -- and, again, it's in your exhibit book -- is 19.8 units per acre. So even now, though they're lowering the number of units, their density is still much higher than anything in the area. And then, finally, when they're using Regatta as a comp -- which is a good comp. That's a meaningful comp, but that you have to also factor in Regatta sits on 9.1 acres, Regatta has open space, Regatta has 150-foot front setback around a 50-foot setback waterfront, you know, depending on how you measure it. So it's -- you just can't say, hey, you know, Regatta's at this height. You've got to factor in everything. So, again, when you look at the approach towards analyzing -- analyzing compatibility and complementary development, the applicant is off. Our analysis is bulletproof. We'll stand by it in any court jurisdiction, whatever. Now, the request. And this slide is all wrong because they've changed it, so bear with me. Their request is for 140 units, 10,000-square-foot commercial. Their request increases density from 16 units per acre to 25.8, which is an approximate increase of 161 percent. So they're asking for 161 percent density increase in a Coastal High Hazard Area. Let me see. The building heights went from -- and, again, the property's C-3, but it's C-3 in proximity to residential tourist, so you are allowed 100 feet. So I've always been saying, hey, you can do 100 feet. So 100 feet. Now they're at 165 feet, so that's 165 percent increase. But the waterfront setbacks, you know, zero waterfront setback to the site plan is measured at 12 feet. Now, staff is saying, yeah, but C-3 already allows -- already allows zero feet, and I'm March 1, 2021 Page 120 going, yeah, and C-3 also mandates a 40-foot setback, C-3 mandates open space. They can't pick and choose. A zero-foot setback for a brand-new Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development is just completely off. The request also is allowing for a new full movement four leg -- four-leg movement intersection opposite the parking garage. That's new and different. The application also, in relying on that, has reduced connection separation by 215 feet. That's part of the request. I will speak to that shortly. Another interesting thing, the applicant uses private rooftop open space without a deviation. Now, I say that because, quite frankly, I don't think you can get a deviation from a definition -- from a definition. I can let your attorney speak to that. The bottom line is -- the bottom line is, open space cannot be determined by using rooftop open space because rooftop open space is fundamentally, quote-unquote, occupied by buildings. You can't do it. So the entire application does not document open space, yet that's what they're asking for, and they're also asking for a 0.79-acre right-of-way transfer, estimated from around four to seven million depending on the calcs. But, you know, that's -- hey, give us four million, and we'll give you a $500,000 traffic light. Oh, and also they're asking for, for hurricane evacuation, 174 cots and a utility trailer. So you're looking at around a $36,320 contribution to meet hurricane standards. So they're asking this, and here's their justification; here are their benefits. Their benefits and -- their benefits are -- a lot of their benefits are code required. For example, we're going to rebuild South Bay Drive, utility roadway drainage improvements, but if you look at Code 6.06.00, these are developer requirements. They have to do that anyway. The pathway, the pathway. Hey, we're putting in an 8 -foot March 1, 2021 Page 121 pathway. Yet, if you look at the code, the code requires a 21-foot pathway as measured from the right-of-way to the building. So whereas the applicant's coming in with an 8-foot below-standard pathway in the right-of-way -- which is a great deal for the applicant -- it doesn't meet code. Again, a benefit. We're going to throw in a 300- or $400,000 traffic light. That's a benefit. Guys, if you can't find 300- to 400,000 in a budget to fund a traffic light -- I mean, I know you can. I know you can. Their other justification is, hey, we're doing this as a really -- this is private sector CRA. You know, we're redeveloping this site. And the bottom line is that only the Board of County Commission can ascertain and point out that this is going to be a CRA and enjoy the benefits thereof. So this is a private sector development. He rises and falls with the degree of risk that he's willing to take. Clearly, closing on property without entitlements is a risk. I know in my career, for 10 years I directed a $357 million real estate portfolio including three marinas, one of which is in Collier County. We would never take this approach. We would get the entitlements, then we would close. The benefits. Oh, this is the last benefit. Okay. And I have to state this on the record: I represent 1,600-plus people, and I've talked to scores of them, and they all are completely in agreement. Their main concern is making sure that Southwest Florida, their slice of paradise, doesn't transform into Miami Beach West Coast. They're concerned about compatible and complementary development. Traffic is a side issue for them. So when I hear the applicant's counsel saying, well, you know, everyone's concerned about traffic, that is not so. If you look at the benefit of traffic, you know -- and I'm not debating -- I am not debating that traffic -- commercial traffic is more March 1, 2021 Page 122 intensive than residential traffic. The trip generation rates are higher, absolutely. Commercial generates a higher amount of traffic. But the hundred thousand square foot parade-of-horrible number is misleading. I mean, I've looked at it. I've looked at it closely. I don't see where they used any type of internal trip capture. For example, if you have commercial here, you know, how many trips are you taking off the road for the people that want to go to U.S. 41 for stuff. They're not doing that. They're using a suburban type shopping center for their trip generation rates. This is -- this is beach retail. The point I'm trying to make is, yeah, there's probably going to be a lot more traffic with C-3 than what the project is put forward right now. But that's just one metric. I have to urge you, this is a comprehensive plan map amendment. You do not just use one metric. You use multiple metrics. That's why they call it comprehensive land-use planning. Metrics such as hurricane evacuation. Urban form, where we get into the compatibility issue. Code compliance, where, again, I can go through and point where they're just not -- they're not meeting code, you know, setbacks, open space, the pedestrian pathway. Coastal management. These are areas that I wouldn't say supersede, but they are of equal importance to traffic as a mean of -- of a means of evaluating whether you guys want to go forward with that land-use map amendment or not. So when you look at the record -- and, again, I'm commenting on my memo. This project clearly fails in meeting Florida statutory requirements 163.6177, Subparagraph 6, data and analysis. Here are the gaps in the record. The staff request. The staff request in the record in April for mitigation plan wasn't provided. The open-space rule I've already talked about. There is -- there is no documentation as provided -- as required by the code. You know, where's your open-space table? March 1, 2021 Page 123 You have to demonstrate open space. Nothing in there. Staff request for architectural drawings not provided. That's a key point, because the fundamental issue in front of you on a zoning basis is the architecture. There's no data. They're just illustrations that are nonbinding. The TIS, certainly Jim Banks is correct, they meet all the technical requirements, but it's important to point out, again, this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. You want to look at long-range solutions, not, well, you know, we meet this minimal standard. They did not -- and I went -- I went through every single boring TIS and correspondence in that. I did not see any discussion from staff or from the applicant about the interrelationship -- the interrelationship of reducing a connection 215 feet and then introducing a new four-legged turning movement from One Naples going out to the east. And, clearly, this is a matter of physics, because when you reduce spacing, you reduce the amount of distance and time that a driver has to react, respond, and so forth. There was not any consideration period. And, again, that's a gap in the record. Marina -- marina design information. Please show me where the full storage and the full containment area will be. Please show me where the ship store will be. Please show me where the service areas, dumpsters, whatever, will be. There's nothing on that and, yet, in front of you is going to be a marina that -- and I pulled this up now. The Naples City Docks is at 84 slips. So you're talking about a marina that's going to be basically almost as large as Naples City Docks, and there's no information. We'll kick the can down the road. If you look at the applicant's justification in their original submittal package, VD1, there's absolutely no comprehensive internal -- Comprehensive Plan internal consistency analysis. March 1, 2021 Page 124 Basically, it's a series of declaratory statements saying, we're compatible; move on. How are they compatible, they do not address. It's thin; it's very thin. And the same thing with there's no neighborhood complementary development standards analysis. None whatsoever. Actually, if you look at your Land Development Code 10.02.13 where it says a PUD master plan will graphically illustrate development strategy using the Community Character Plan for Collier County, again, there's nothing in the record, and that's a rule requirement. So, again, you know, there's just absolutely no discussion. And then finally the record, if you look at the staff report and staff correspondence, you will see discussion on compatibility. You will not see any mention of complementary. Complementary's important because complementary deals with how the project fits into the neighborhood which is, on the zoning level, the key issue. How does this thing fit? How does this thing work? Well, the project is not consistent with statutory requirements in terms of data and analysis. Internal consistency. In my exhibit book, I've provided you with ample professional documentation that this project does not comply with 23 objectives, goals, and standards of the Collier County plan. It's in there. I don't need to go through it unless you want me to. I'll be delighted to, but that's going to chew up a lot of my time. If you look, it doesn't meet the density entitlement rule, the density entitlement rule 4.07.02, and it's also -- it's not consistent with the actual PUD purpose and intent code, you know, which basically states that, hey, for a PUD, you've got to have your development standards that are similar with the neighborhood. Their de velopment standards are not similar with the neighborhood. As a legislative policy-making act, which is, again, what's in March 1, 2021 Page 125 front of you, you have great discretion and not withstanding Stock's -- Stock Development Company's documentation that we have some support, there are, I mean, thousands of people that are opposed to this project, and they have not been misled. And, again, stating for the -- being very clear, I apologized to the applicant during the P and Z conference -- hearing, excuse me, because I did have the wrong building height on my illustration, and that was as much a graphical scrivener's error. But I'm on the record. I apologized. That was an accident. But in no way, shape, or form does that negate the factual documentation that has been presented. It's not. This amendment, this Comp Plan amendment and subsequent rezoning will -- absolutely will grant a unique and special privilege to the applicant. It won't provide any meaningful public benefit other than the parade-of-horribles argument which, again, it's not that legitimate. You have to look at all of the issues. This will lead to a spot rezoning, it will, because the development standards still far away, statistically speaking, are greater than anything in the neighborhood. The applicant's density drives the project's non-compatibility, so staff's recommendation to go forward with the amendment really doesn't make any sense. It's not logical. And then, again, if you look at professional acceptable planning principles and practices, and using transportation as an example, they -- the applicant stated, well, we looked at a roundabout. I have yet to see any documentation or analysis about any alternatives and, in fact, we have experts that fundamentally disagree. A roundabout at South Bay would be an excellent solution. It certainly would relieve the problems of Regatta and some of my other clients in terms of, you know, how do you go out on a hugely busy road and go east towards 41? A roundabout would help solve that. So, again, I just March 1, 2021 Page 126 don't see the record in terms of them meetings, you know, bare-bones standards. Now, when you get into the Coastal High Hazard Area , I think it is important to point out that your code, it states clearly -- it states clearly that you have to provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. Evacuation times are not shelters. It's evacuation. Shelter are the cots, the trailer, I guess. You know, so right there, 12.1.2, it doesn't comply. It's internally inconsistent. Right there you should just stop, kick this thing back; it does not meet that requirement. If you look at your Coastal Conservation Goal 12, when it says the One Naples -- where it talks about density and it requires the project to make every reasonable effort to ensure public safety, I do not see how increasing density by 161 percent meets that criteria. It certainly doesn't meet the statutory requirement of a 3178.83.A, appropriate mitigation, because appropriate mitigation ties back into your plan which mandates; this is not an option. It mandates evacuation, not shelter. So, again, the applicant's providing $36,320 worth of stuff rather than actual evacuation. It doesn't comply with your Coastal Management Plan. When you look at neighborhood compatibility -- and, again, I think it's terrific that the applicant has come forward at the 11th -plus hour and changed their 15-foot setbacks to 25-foot setbacks for Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, but it is very important to point out, that's not the only issue here. The waterfront. Waterfront; 25-foot is the minimal code requirement. They're coming in at zero. I spoke to James Sabo. I said, I thought we had an agreement. I thought we had an understanding. He goes, oh, no, no. C-3 allows zero feet, so we're going to give that to them. Yeah, well, C-3 also allows -- mandates open space and setbacks that they're not March 1, 2021 Page 127 anywhere close to complying. You know, a 25-foot setback on waterfront is the minimal you can do. So, again, when I look at that, and then the 25-foot front setback on South Bay, which is absolutely required -- I heard the discussion it's an internal street. It's a public street. Talk to the people at Barefoot Pelican. They're the ones that are going to be -- you know, here's a project that's complying with the code next to a project that's much taller, much mass -- much more massive, and it's going to be in the shadow, if you will, because of these highly incompatible setbacks. So conservative language -- a conservative interpretation of the language of compatibility and complementary certainly would include, well, I think we do need a 25-foot setback along the waterfront because that's what the code says. We do agree with staff in their findings in their original staff report. If you look on Page 10 -- and I won't cite them unless you want me to, but on Page 10 through Page 13 they have 11 findings that state the project's not compatible. They state it for building height, at street-level parking, to the tower and massing, so forth and so on. So we agree with them. And staff basically, in the planning and zoning hearing said, hey, here are our standards, and then we met with them afterwards. Is this what you mean? Yes. Is this what you mean? Yes. Well, we'll support you. Thank you. And then they turn around at the 11th hour and change their standards. It doesn't make me look that good for my clients. So when you have a project that -- and this is the staff's -- excuse me. This is the applicant's comment, when he's stating that this is going to be high-quality mixed-use development that is complementary to and compatible with the surrounding development, but yet the development standards do not get there. They don't get there. March 1, 2021 Page 128 You still have a 165-foot building height when your neighborhood average is around -- is a seven- or eight-story building, and it's a lot -- it's a lot shorter, too, because, you know, the floors, instead of having 13- and 14-foot floors, you know, the older buildings you're at 9, 10, and 11. You know, it just doesn't work. And also -- let me see here. Mr. Sabo -- someone asked Mr. Sabo whether they -- whether the new development standards comply with the code, and he said yes. And they don't. I mean, let's see here. The tower at the new height, the new -- the new zoned height requires 64-and-a-half feet, okay. And they're providing 35 feet, okay. So 64 to 35. And then the waterfront; 87-foot building requires a 43-and-a-half-foot setback. What they're proposing is zero feet to 12 feet. So Mr. Sabo is wrong. He is. Sorry. Now, this is now obsolete because it's not 186 feet. It's 165 feet, and the 15-foot setback is now 25 feet. But even still, the new development standards, when you compare that to the adjoining Beachmoor, the overwhelmed Beachmoor, that should be an important finding for you to deny the Comprehensive Plan map amendment. I keep going the wrong way. Okay. The canyon effect. I really have to sit back and evaluate what they are now proposing. Certainly, 25 feet is a lot better than 15 feet but yet our original standards that we dropped to support staff were 30 feet, and the reason why 30-foot -- from my professional experience of doing this for 35 years, 30-foot allows for your 21-foot code-required pathway, plus -- and I was going, okay, plus another 10 feet for foundation plantings, granted -- so -- but instead of 31 feet I was going, hey, you know, let's just knock it down to nine feet. That's where we came up with the 30-foot standard. Thirty-foot is much better. But we honor our word. We said we would support March 1, 2021 Page 129 staff on the 25-foot setback. We still do. That said, I'm still not sure -- I hope the optional 15-foot setback for the tower site has been eliminated. Has it been eliminated? Because I'm not sure because -- if it has been, we agree with eliminating that optional 15-foot. If not, I'll talk to you about that. The same thing with the Vanderbilt Beach Road -- and, again, the model in front of you is to scale, so it's -- I know the applicant did not like it because it doesn't show landscaping, but the model does show the mass, the height, because, quite frankly, landscaping does not resolve the issues, nor should it be nor can it be from any interpretation in any reading of any professional books on Comprehensive Planning. It just doesn't. Now, I mentioned and I focused on the waterfront setback. This slide, I think, kind of gets you there. You see where the applicant's zero- to 12-foot setback compared to Pelican -- excuse me -- Barefoot Pelican's setback of 25 feet, and they have 25 feet in front; whereas, One Naples has a 10-foot setback in the front. So you understand how Barefoot Pelican's just going to be impacted to shadowing effects, possible creating nuisances. I don't know. There's not enough data and analysis provided by the applicant to really -- for me to get an understanding. But, clearly, it's incompatible. So, again, I strongly urge you to protect Barefoot Pelican and all the residents that live on the back bay by having at least a 25-foot setback. And, again, the code requires, I think, 43. Another interesting thing, if you look from that perspective, the building itself; 87 feet, six floors, five hundred and -- 500 -- oh, I have 520 feet. It's actually 540 feet long, plus or minus. Basically, you've got an 87-foot-tall building almost the length of two football fields set back from zero to 12 feet. How could this be found complementary and compatible? It cannot. March 1, 2021 Page 130 You have no choice, by a conservative reading of the rules, to throw the comprehensive map amendment out and just tell the developer to start all over again and do something neat. I already pointed out that it does allow potential restaurant uses on the waterfront. Again, I would like to see Ms. Jenkins come up and say, hey, we need to have some conditions, you know, the two building conditions, the waterfront restaurant conditions. Tighten it up. You need to tighten this thing up. Driveway spacing and circulation is an important consideration. I pointed out earlier that if you look at the graphic in front of you, you see where the 565-foot spacing to South Bay was. Now that's been reduced to 350 where also they are introducing a new four-legged intersection with a left out going towards U.S. 41. So close your eyes. Pretend you're in One Naples, and you're trying to get out. How do you know when it's safe to get out? You're going to have queuing up to turning in the parking garage, you're going to have cars going out of the parking garage going towards the beach. You're going to have cars going back and forth, east and west, west and east. How do you know when it's safe? Mr. Banks, during the P and Z hearing, stated, hey, well, you know, if that's the case, if it's really jammed up, they'll back up or do whatever, and they'll go out on South Bay. And so if they're going to use South Bay, then it's prudent upon the Board to limit the access -- the gateway access to right-in, right-out. Our original recommendation, which I would still hold valid, is just close it. But a right-in, right-out would certainly protect the public. When you look from a Comprehensive Plan perspective, it's not consistent. Again, look at my Exhibit 6. I mean, there are a bunch of policies. Policy 3 2, Subparagraph F, where you have to have safe and convenient traffic. And, again, my point is that if you have a 38 percent reduction in intersection spacing, this is physics. You March 1, 2021 Page 131 know, you're reducing the space; therefore, you're reducing driver behavioral time; therefore, you are reducing safety. Now, how much of a reduction? I don't know. But it's not upon me to tell you. It's up to the applicant. Nothing. Nothing in the record. Nothing from staff on that. If you look at transportation policy on, let me see, Objective 3, protection of future right-of-way. Well, I was going to say the 15-foot. It doesn't. But now that they're at 25 feet, yeah. So I'll back off on that, because at least you've got another 10 feet to play with if you do have to widen Vanderbilt Beach Road. So I'll back off on that. Objective 7, where, again, it mandates safe and convenient traffic circulation. I just discussed that. Seven one -- excuse me. Policy 7.1 and 7.2, impact on surrounding streets. Again, where the failure of staff comes into play is that they did not look at alternative options. This is a long-range comprehensive map amendment. You should be looking at solutions rather than just meeting minimal standards. Look ing at the problems of Regatta trying to get out is only going to be compounded. A roundabout would be more than reasonable to ask. They did not look at it. The project also is not consistent with 7.4 where it talks about walkable communities and common open space. Again, what they're providing doesn't even meet code. Doesn't even meet code. Doesn't meet the Land Development Code criteria for zoning. External relationships. It fails to comply with 4.07.02.B, shall be compatible, even with the revised standards. I'm sorry. My testimony is it's not, and I'm not using illustrations that are nonmeasurable. I'm using models. I'm using real statistics based upon the real neighborhoods. If you look at residential density, 4.07.02.D, creates un -- an March 1, 2021 Page 132 inconvenient or unsafe access. I suggest to you that, yes, it does. They disagree, but I'll stay with my opinion. Traffic congestion. Possibly. They have not looked at the interrelated connection reduction and the new turning leg. So, again, they don't meet the Land Development Code criteria for density. So if you look at the findings, okay, again, it's not consistent -- oh, there's a typo. It should be 23, Growth Management Plan objectives, policies, and standards, not 24. It's internally inconsistent. I disagree with staff, period. The zoning is a poorly designed project still based on two narrow setbacks with no functional open space and a complete absence of coastal high hazard evacuation mitigation. Again, cots -- cots are not evacuation. That's what the code requires. Traffic circulation. Again, I pointed out, this is a poorly executed project. You should be looking at long-range solutions. This does not meet the statutory requirement for data and analysis and internal consistency. And, again, it doesn't comply with a lot of your codes. I think the graphic to the right of you shows, hey, this is what a 21 -foot pedestrian pathway that is code required, you know, that's what it kind of looks like, and they're doing an 8-foot pathway off the property which is, again, not allowed. Well, not allowed, if they can get away with it. If you look at the findings, okay, this is where we get -- it gets really interesting. You know, you have broad legislative -- legislative powers, compared to if this goes into a zoning issue, it's quasi-judicial. If the applicant -- and this is hypothetical, but if the applicant doesn't like the zoning and he litigates, basically you've just given him -- gave him an opening. The easiest way out to prevent excessive county liability is to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment. March 1, 2021 Page 133 The standards. Okay. We have agreed, and we will still say, yes, we agree to the original planning and zoning recommended standards, and that was agreed to by staff, and Sarah Spector was on the phone -- on the Zoom with us November 15th -- that were agreed to by staff for us to support the project. So we agree with that, 76 feet to 125 feet with the wedding cake design, if you will. And, by the way, the reason is this -- and it's important to point out. You've got a 50-foot separation, so if you don't have a step-back, you know, depending on your angle of how you're looking at it, you're going to have -- you're going to have, like, this perception from almost all -- all viewpoints on Vanderbilt Beach Road and probably Gulf Shore Drive of one massive structure. The wedding cake approach reduces that so all of a sudden you're differentiating. So instead of looking at one monolithic -- the perception of one monolithic structure, the wedding cake then allows a more complimentary approach. You know, it distinguishes the two towers. And I know the applicant said, hey, well, you know, the Regatta's got it. Well, quite frankly, the Regatta never should have been built like that. They also should have had greater setbacks, but that's history. No sense -- no sense repeating, you know, what the Regatta has in terms of setback and step-back. We agree with staff with the 25-foot setback, but this is where we disagree. And I just spoke with James Sabo. We were very clear, 25-foot setback for all buildings, front and back; waterfront, front and back; the mid-rise on Vanderbilt Beach Road, front and back. Now staff's backing off on it. So we disagree with staff. We certainly absolutely recommend in the highest possible terms a minimal 25 percent open space, and that is below code. But a 25 percent open space, and it has to be functional. It can't be on the roof. It has to be functional as per your own definition with common open space. And the right-in, right-out, I think that's very, March 1, 2021 Page 134 very important to protect the public. So when you look at staff's original recommendat ions, there was a reasonable nexus between their height standards and their conditions, and this shows that. You know, you have the 127-foot Beachmoor. They're coming up with 125 feet, so forth and so on. So there was significant data and analysis to support their recommendations, their original recommendations, not the ones they just changed a week or two ago. I don't know when they changed it. There's no data and analysis to support their new stuff. Fifteen-foot setback, we've already gone into that. That's now 25 feet. One thing that I would like to point out, that even with a 25-foot setback, where would this be accessible in Collier County? Would this -- would this development, the development standards that we're talking about, be accessible in Marco Island? No. I mean, Sanibel? Fort Myers Beach? Bonita Beach? No, no, no. City of Naples, no. Yet somehow, someway, staff is saying, hey, go ahead, approve the density knowing that the density's going to create compatibility and complementary concerns and we'll just kind of condition it and, you know, tweak it a little bit. That's not how it works. This would not be acceptable any place, certainly Marco Island. Setbacks, we already talked about that. The optional 15-foot setback condition. Again, I'm under the impression that now is being deleted, withdrawn, so I don't have to speak about that. So my last is this: The easiest, practical and most lucid way of approaching this issue is deny the amendment and tell the applicant to go back and redo the design. This is a legislative action. This is not quasi-judicial in terms of the Comp Plan amendments. Respect the original record. How can staff change their recommendations at the 11th hour when there's no substantial change in conditions? I mean, the elevations that they were talking about were the same, you March 1, 2021 Page 135 know, in September, October that were embedded in the staff report. You know, changing it on the 11th hour and then all of a sudden forcing everybody to scramble to understand that, I don't understand why this thing isn't remanded. So any change -- in my humble opinion, any change from the original staff conditions, you know, is just really not appropriate and supportable. You know, you shouldn't be horse trading. This is way too important of an issue to be horse trading at the 11th hour. Let's do this right. You should kick -- you should just deny it and say, start all over again. And thank you very much. I'm available for any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't see any questions from my Board, but I think Mr. Yovanovich has some questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, actually just a couple of questions on format. Do you want to go, Commissioner Solis? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Your button wasn't pushed, sir, so I -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, you beat me to it, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There we go. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So, Mr. Stuart, I'm just -- I'm trying to understand in terms of the commercial -- well, you've said that at some point you agreed that the staff's recommendation for 25-foot setback was acceptable. MR. STUART: Yes. As long as it doesn't have that 15-foot option. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. STUART: That is in lieu of our 30-foot but, yes, we have agreed to that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've agreed to that, okay. MR. STUART: For all buildings, front and back, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All buildings. MR. STUART: All buildings, front and back. March 1, 2021 Page 136 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. The -- your position that there's not enough open space, is that -- does that take into consideration the DaRuMa piece, or is that based upon the DaRuMa piece not being included in the calculation? MR. STUART: Well, the DaRuMa piece, quite frankly, is legally nonpermissible. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's not my question. My question is, your analysis that there's not enough open space, does that include DaRuMa or not include DaRuMa? MR. STUART: Well, because this was just sprung up at the 11th hour, I haven't conducted the analysis, but it -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So no? MR. STUART: If I -- I don't think DaRuMa will get you at that 30 percent, but it would be more beneficial to actually have an open-space table so we could figure it out. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm still not clear on whether you answered my -- I mean, you're reaching a conclusion that there's no -- there's not enough open space. All I'm asking you -- it's not a trick question -- is whether or not that conclusion that you've reached is based upon the DaRuMa's being included in that -- in your calculation or not being included in your calculation. MR. STUART: DaRuMa, my -- my analysis is based on DaRuMa not being included in any calculations. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. STUART: And if I did, I have a feeling it still won't meet the 30 percent, and that's why, again, the code requires some type of documentation, an open-space table, if you will. There's no open-space table. I really can't address the issue. Staff should have been addressing this issue a half a year ago. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I don't have any other questions for Mr. Stuart. March 1, 2021 Page 137 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I know that Mr. Yovanovich is probably chomping at the bit here to reply. But when I hear things like Mr. Stuart say it doesn't meet the bare-bones standards of code -- which I can appreciate your comment. I'm not attacking you or anything, but you're basically saying staff did this incorrectly or this incorrectly. Me, personally, I'd like to hear the rebuttal from the staff. I mean, I know Mr. Yovanovich is going to probably go through five or six things here possibly, maybe not, but at some point, I mean, I took some great notes here, and of the 23 items that don't meet Growth Management Plan objectives, policies, or standards, you know, according to, you know, Mr. Stuart, I mean, there's eight big ones that I'd like to hear the rebuttal on. And, I mean, I just think it's more appropriate to hear it from the staff than from the applicant, especially when the acquisition or, I guess, maybe the comment -- I shouldn't say accusation -- the comment is that staff is overlooking some pretty key things. So I wrote down eight things that I'd love to hear -- you know, eight questions that I have -- and I think they're going to be shared by my colleagues, so I don't -- you know, I mean, I think we're going to have very similar questions. So, if I may ask Ms. Jenkins these, and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, so you heard, it was said that it doesn't meet the bare-bones standards of code and that there's 23 items that don't meet Growth Management Plan objectives, policies, and standards. Here's the eight big ones that jumped out to me, and I'd just like to hear, you know, your reply, because the term was there's major March 1, 2021 Page 138 gaps in the record. So these are in no particular order. It was the order they were presented. So what is mandated by C-3 via setbacks? So zero setbacks on the water is not -- is not acceptable? MS. JENKINS: It is acceptable, and 25 feet or half the distance of the building would be required under C-3 for setbacks. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And that would be 25 feet. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The second thing I wrote here is that there's more drainage requirement by the developer. That was a more complicated discussion. But to your assessment, is the drainage design and what the applicant is going to provide, does it meet the requirements of what we would have -- we request via code? MS. JENKINS: Stormwater management is addressed at the time of Site Development Plan, not at the time of zoning. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. The trip generation numbers were questioned significantly, that maybe an example of a strip mall -- or I forget the exact terminology. It really wasn't apples to apples, and the staff was incorrect in the numbers. What would be your rebuttal to that? MS. JENKINS: I stand by our analysis of the trip generations that have been done by staff and peer reviewed. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Well, let's shift gears into hurricane evac, because that's a big one. Is it within standards and can you rebut or comment on what's being said here about, you know, cots aren't hurricane standard and that there's a whole bunch of things in the -- that are county requirements that aren't being met here? MS. JENKINS: Sure. Anytime we have a project that needs hurricane evacuation evaluation, our expert, Dan Summers, does that evaluation, and we rely on him to do that evaluation. What Dan has provided to us before is anytime you look at March 1, 2021 Page 139 evacuation, it's based on the level of service of the roadways. So if you're at level of service and you have capacity on the roadways, then you're meeting your evacuation needs. And so Dan's miti gation for hurricane was to do 172 cots. And that's where that requirement came from is from our own expert, Dan Summers. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So in your estimation then, the analysis was done; it does meet county requirements? MS. JENKINS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Open space being below code. What would be your comment on that? MS. JENKINS: My comment is maybe let's read the definition of open space, which includes hardscape areas, atriums. I have it here. It includes outdoor facilities, plazas, atriums, courtyards, and other similar public spaces. It does not say it has to be on the ground or on the top. We consider that open space, and open space is measured, again, at the time of Site Development Plan in Collier County. MR. STUART: Areas that are not occupied by building, just as rebuttal. You forgot that, Madam. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me just -- because you'll get a chance, Mr. Stuart. So when you look at this particular project, especially now with the acquisition of the restaurant and it gives more open space as long as it's used correctly, would your assessment be that the open space does meet the requirement? MS. JENKINS: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: This is a big one, too. The comment was made that these are just basically architectural drawings and that they're non-binding illustrations. What would be your professional comment? And that the staff is -- you know, all of these were directed towards -- that the staff is just basically using architectural drawings and making decisions and that these are March 1, 2021 Page 140 nonbinding. What would be your comment? MS. JENKINS: My comment is today we agreed to a condition in the Planned Unit Development document to require two towers on that location with a 50-foot separation. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So the comment that's dated where you or some others on the staff said, yeah, they could put one, now that is -- that has definitely changed and fixed and formal and whatnot? MS. JENKINS: Yes. They have committed to it today, and you will see that in the PUD document that we would approve. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Just two more quick ones, because they concern me about full storage and the ship store. How much detail would have to be in the -- you know, the architectural drawings that we've already seen? You know, the comment's been made, where is it? You know, it's missing or whatnot. Is that something, then, that goes against code or -- MS. JENKINS: No, sir. That, again, is done at the time of Site Development Plan. When you have your marina plan done, to get a marina, they first have to go through the whole Manatee Protection Plan to determine the number of docks that they can have, so they have to go through that step through Site Development Plan. So we don't -- we don't have that information until they do that analysis with DEP. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And there's a possibility they could do that analysis, and it might not meet the requirement -- MS. JENKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- correct? And then, lastly -- and this is sort of an overall comment. But we heard that the neighborhood -- it's not complementary to the neighborhood development standards and that no analysis was done, and I saw you back there sort of shaking your head, so I wanted to March 1, 2021 Page 141 give you the floor to make -- that was -- this is my last observation. What would be your comment to that? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. We did a full evaluation of the project, and through the review of it all, we find it compatible and complementary with towers in the area, limited commercial, to reduce the impacts on public infrastructure, which is required for us to look at through your Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. Mr. Stuart made several references to requiring architectural -- actual -- the construction drawings, architectural drawings for this process. I mean, is that the usual process for a rezoning? MS. JENKINS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: When does all that come into play? MS. JENKINS: At the time of building permit. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And site plan and all that? MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And building permit approval and all that? MS. JENKINS: Site plan. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Nothing else. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Commissioner LoCastro asked a lot of the questions that I think needed to be explained. I think you did a nice job with those. But one I still have is the issue of the mass of these buildings and the mass of the parking garage. So I'm a bit troubled. I'm looking at their display, and I realize that that's not accurate in terms of the heights of the buildings at this point. But can you kind of March 1, 2021 Page 142 comment on the issue of the mass of the buildings, the mass of the parking garage, and I think the term was "canyonization" of this roadway and -- MS. JENKINS: Sure. What we heard, Commissioner, at the time of the Planning Commission was their architect that was testifying about the mass of the building and the air and the light and the view sheds, the view cones from the other existing buildings around it, and that's what they were most concerned about, and that's how this design evolved over time to ensure light, air, and appropriate design standards for these buildings. So that was the staff's concern when we first started reviewing this project. We did not want to see one large building. And through the design process and the hearing process, they have amended that to provide for air and light to flow through those areas and not to block those view cones that people enjoy now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There was a comment made that this parking garage is, in essence, a full city block, and there's nothing in Southwest Florida that is comparable to this type of a large parking garage this close to the road. Is that -- is that accurate? Is this -- MS. JENKINS: I know of two parking garages in the City of Naples that have zero-foot setbacks. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And I'm looking at the posters there showing a 35-foot -- I think it was 30-foot and 35-foot kind of a -- to depict the height of the parking garage and the -- how it will look to people on the sidewalk. I'd just like your comment on that. I realize that that's a 15 -foot, and we're going to be at 25-foot, and I realize there's going to be landscaping, but is that a fairly accurate depiction of what that's going to look like, in your opinion? And if not, why? MS. JENKINS: I don't think the photos are an accurate March 1, 2021 Page 143 depiction of what that's going to look like because of the landscaping that's going to be around it, and today we also heard that they're going to lower it to 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the parking garage will be at 25 feet, not at 30 or 35? MS. JENKINS: No? Oh, I'm sorry. The setback is going to be 25 feet, not the height. So that illustration doesn't have any of the landscaping, the setback of it, or anything else illustrated, so I don't think that's a fair representation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The parking garages in the City of Naples, I'm very -- obviously, we're all familiar with those. That has zero setback. How tall are those? Do you -- MS. JENKINS: They're three stories so, you know, they're probably over 35 feet. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just for the sake of repeating it, this is a Comp Plan amendment and a zoning process that we're approving right now, and it is common, Mr. Stuart, frustration when folks are in this -- in this system to have concerns about final details that are, in fact, coming with a particular project. Do we have architectural standards available or utilized while someone's coming through the actual development process for SDP and such? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir, we do. We have architectural standards in Collier County that they will follow. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. I was -- I want to assure you that that, in fact -- that is, in fact, the case. I also want to assure you that no one is infallible. But it's been a long time since I heard somebody make the representations that you made today about March 1, 2021 Page 144 our staff and their capacity to do their job well. MR. STUART: May I speak to the architectural? Because, again, I did not state -- did not state we were asking for -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I heard you make a statement with regard to the architectural plans. You weren't able to review those, and that was something that you actually wanted to do as a portion of your -- MR. STUART: That's not correct -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- review. MR. STUART: -- Mr. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll watch the tape. MR. STUART: Rule 10.02.13.A.F, and this goes to one of -- the heart of the issue. When determined necessary to adequately address the compatibility of proposed uses to existing or other proposed uses, relationship to open space, rec facilities or traffic impacts, or to assess requests for reductions in dimensional standards, the planning and zoning director may request schematic architectural drawings for the structures. I was not referring to Site Development Plan architectural standards. I was referring to 10.02.13 as a point of discretion. And then also, I just have to say, I have never been sandbagged by staff, so I didn't want to bring that up, but there you have it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As -- and that, in fact, is the point in case with regard to your comments earlier, sir. MR. STUART: Well, I'm sorry, being that direct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no further comments. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm going to let what Mr. Stuart just said about our staff sink in a minute here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're more patient than I. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have found that -- I have found March 1, 2021 Page 145 that so disturbing that I've forgotten what I was going to say. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I'm -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I take great exception to those comments. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing else. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I believe that Mr. Yovanovich wants to speak, and so we certainly can come back to you, sir. MS. JENKINS: I just have one question for Mr. Stuart, if I may. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sure. Absolutely. MS. JENKINS: Mr. Stuart, did you attend the Planning Commission? MR. STUART: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Yes? And were you there on October 15th? MR. STUART: Yes. MS. JENKINS: And did you hear the conversations about the FEMA? MR. STUART: Yes, on pages 21 and 22 of the transcripts. MS. JENKINS: And did you read through Pages 99 through 120? MR. STUART: Yes, I did. MS. JENKINS: And can they build commercial on the ground floor? MR. STUART: No, they can't, but -- well, they can have ancillary commercial uses that relate to a number of functions. As an example of not being allowed would be kitchens, for example, for a restaurant. MS. JENKINS: And do you remember the testimony by Elizabeth Fountain to talk about floodproofing and what the details of the building requires? March 1, 2021 Page 146 MR. STUART: That's correct. MS. JENKINS: And what was that? MR. STUART: Well, geez, going into FEMA. I mean, that's a very broad code. What exactly do you want me to testify to? MS. JENKINS: I'm asking you -- you said that they could build, on the first floor, commercial uses; is that what you just said? MR. STUART: No, I was using -- you can have ancillary commercial uses such as plazas, areas for sitting and dining, et cetera, et cetera, that tie into the commercial uses that relate to Mr. Sabo's original condition, street functionality and street vibrancy. MS. JENKINS: Okay. So there could be something down there, but they cannot -- you cannot walk off the street and into a store? MR. STUART: That's more or less correct; more or less correct. MS. JENKINS: Is correct or not correct? MR. STUART: Well, because, again, your own staff, on Page 21 and 22, said it's -- see, the whole issue was accessibility, you know, i.e., we've got access through an elevator shaft versus -- versus the activization, and the original condition was to activize the street to make it compatible, and we agree with that. MS. JENKINS: So, Mr. Stuart, did Mr. Sabo's comment come before or after the testimony of the experts of the applicant and the county staff? MR. STUART: I think the -- your flood FEMA gentleman was after Mr. Sabo. MS. JENKINS: So would it be fair to say that we would -- staff should respond to expert testimony and evidence submitted during a Planning Commission to advise this board? MR. STUART: That's absolutely correct, but then why is it that a month later -- almost a month later when we're discussing these March 1, 2021 Page 147 issues with you, you said absolutely, we're going to clarify that because we believe in Mr. Sabo? So that was well after the planning and zoning hearing. That's why I'm so irate about this whole issue. MS. JENKINS: Okay. So the clarification is on the record that we made an agreement, staff and the applicant and the Board came to an -- the Planning Commission came to an understanding of commercial was not doable on the ground floor and, therefore, the agreement was to allow the commercial on the second floor accessible to the public, and that's -- and I will be happy to enter that word for word in the record if necessary, but that is what the record shows on Pages 90 through 120 or so. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. JENKINS: I have no further questions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair, I remembered my question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I saw your light. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And it has to do with the canyonization issue. What's the height of our parking garage? MS. JENKINS: Forty feet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Our parking garage is 40 feet to the railings and everything on the top floor. And -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ours or the county? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no, the county's. I'm sorry. The county's, yeah, 40 feet. MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Forty feet, not -- okay. And do we have any idea what the setback is on the county parking garage? MS. JENKINS: Twenty-five. MR. YOVANOVICH: Twenty-two. MS. JENKINS: Twenty-two. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-two feet. Okay. That's March 1, 2021 Page 148 all I needed. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich, you've been very patient. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, and I appreciate all the questions, and I -- I'm impressed by Anita's questioning of Mr. Stuart. Mr. Stuart, I just want to make sure, did you go back and review your Planning Commission testimony? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Was that testimony under oath? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it truthful and accurate? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I can quote it back when I do my closing? MR. STUART: Mr. Yovanovich, you can do whatever -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to go through the whole -- I don't want to go through a whole recross-examination. I just want to make sure you're not going to change anything you said from the Planning Commission, so when I give the excerpts about your testimony and the inaccuracies of that testimony in my close, you're not taking anything back? MR. STUART: Well, I can't because I'm not -- I can't get back on the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it was accurate, right? MR. STUART: Mr. Yovanovich, please tell me what's in your hip pocket. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I've got nothing. I've just got nothing but your words. And you can help me so I can prepare for my rebuttal. MR. STUART: I'd be delighted to help you, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know, and I don't think anybody March 1, 2021 Page 149 else in this room who's worked in Collier County knows where there's a 20-foot-wide -- 21-foot-wide pathway requirement anywhere in the Land Development Code, because they don't exist anywhere in Collier County. So when I'm prepared for my rebuttal, I want to know what section to go to, and then I want to be able to talk to my consultants as to why we didn't meet that 21-foot requirement. MR. STUART: May I give you that section? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Yes, you can. MR. STUART: Just a moment. Because it's both in the -- it's both in the mixed-use C-3 and in the MPUD section, so let me just find it. Just bear with me. Oh, I'm on the wrong file. LDC 1.08.02, definitions, pedestrian pathway, the area between road right-of-way and buildings within commercial mixed-use project and residential mixed-use PUD project. Pedestrian pathway shall include street furnishings, so forth and so on, and shall be a minimum of 21 feet in width and then, again, it's also in the C-3 mixed use. So there's two spots where it requires a 21-foot -- minimum 21-foot pedestrian pathway. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir, you're -- I just want to make sure I've got this clear. You're telling me I've got to have a sidewalk 21 feet wide to be consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code? MR. STUART: Again, 1.08.02, the definition of a pedestrian pathway not only gives the specificity of 21 feet, but it states that it has to be, you know, between the right-of-way and the building, which means it has to be on the property, not off the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll check that. And my only other -- couple of other questions. I'm looking at these pictures. Can you tell me where the property line is on the pictures that you're showing to the commissioners? MR. STUART: The property line setback? March 1, 2021 Page 150 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Tell me where the property line is on these pictures. Right here. You see. You're displaying them. Where's the property line? MR. STUART: Well, the 15-foot shows the outer -- the outer line. And, again, these are approximate. Oh, well, that's not my slide. Can I -- no. Can I go back on my slide? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. You're showing these pictures, and I want to know -- MR. STUART: Well, it's on my slide. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? Madam Chair, he needs to be on a microphone so we can get the record. We have a hand-held microphone. MR. YOVANOVICH: Please, please. MR. MILLER: Hold on just a minute. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody hold the picture for him. MR. MILLER: Now you can walk around. MR. STUART: But may I open up -- because it's the identical picture but it's annotated. May I? Just a moment. MR. YOVANOVICH: While picking that up, did you have a surveyor out there actually stake the property line? MR. STUART: Just a moment. There we go. Approximately there. And, no, that was -- there was no surveyor. It was basically just a step-back. And, again, it's an approximate dimension. This illustrates the height. It doesn't -- it's not supposed to represent, you know, a literal parking garage, but it's trying to show the height at 15 feet and a setback. So there it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: And did we ask for any deviations from the county's definition of open space in our PUD? MR. STUART: Well, originally you did, yes. Originally, you asked for -- March 1, 2021 Page 151 MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't ask you the originally. I'm asking you right now, the document that's in front of the Board of County Commissioners, did we ask for a deviation from the county's open-space requirement? MR. STUART: You originally asked for a rooftop open-space deviation, and that was withdrawn, I believe, in April based upon what I strongly believe is an erroneous interpretation. Because when your code says open space cannot be occupied by buildings and you have open space occupied by buildings, we'll disagree all day long on that, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that a no? Is your answer no? MR. STUART: Well, no. You did ask for a deviation. Then you withdrew it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. I'll deal with the rest of it in my rebuttal. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a process question? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: When we met in your office about how much time -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's up to the discretion of the Chair, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, and I'm just asking. You had said you were going to give them an hour and a half, and Mr. -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's been there. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's been there almost an hour and a half. Are we going to allow their transportation consultant an hour and a half? Is that the plan? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we're not. In fact, I think this is a perfect time for a break for Ms. Terri, because I think she needs it. So we're going to have a 10-minute break, which puts us back here at March 1, 2021 Page 152 3:45. That's enough for you, ma'am? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Eleven minutes. (A brief recess was had from 3:34 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So now we are going to continue. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody's got to hit the live mic button. MR. MILLER: No, no. You're -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You couldn't hear me because I probably was not close enough. Okay. Thank you very much. So if you would please identify yourself, and we'll continue. MR. OLIVER: Sure. Are we ready? Good, thanks. My name's Bill Oliver. I'm a -- wait a minute. Let me take off my mask anyway. Yeah, my name's Bill Oliver. I'm a registered Florida professional engineer certified by the Transportation Professionals Certification Board as a professional traffic operations engineer. I've got 42 years of experience in traffic and circulation iss ues relating to land development. In that 42 years, I've undertaken impact analyses or reviewed on behalf of government agencies over 170 million square feet of nonresidential development and over 180,000 residential dwellings. I've actually kept count. I've been retained by Save Vanderbilt Beach to review traffic issues associated with One Naples. And in my presentation to the Planning Commission, I spent more time discussing a variety of concerns with the applicant's analysis and his traffic -- the traffic circulation solutions that are on the table, and I also presented a concept for providing better long-term safety and circulation by March 1, 2021 Page 153 separating vehicles from vulnerable road users, that is pedestrians and bicycles. I stand by the recommendations and the observations I made in that Planning Commission testimony, but today, in the interest of brevity, I'm going to focus on four or five circulation issues relevant to the proposed land-use plan amendment and your growth management policies. The blessing of this is Greg kind of hit on all of them. So I may not even spend as much time as I was planning to. So this proceeding is for an amendment to the Growth Management Plan land-use element to add -- allow greater densities on the land parcel in question. This isn't a concurrency hearing. As you're aware, the two processes are very different. You're not bound in this process by the laws and rules that govern concurrency. You can apply your planning judgment. The proposed buildings will exist on that site for who knows how many years, 80, 100; realistically, that's probably true. So it makes little sense to limit your considerations and design reviews to a short-term site access and traffic impact analysis. It makes more sense to consider this development from the longer-term perspective of your Growth Management Plan's companion adopted Transportation Element, and so that's what I've done. And in doing so, I've concluded the solutions on the table to traffic issues miss some key opportunities to address some of this these longer-term issues. So that's kind of the gist of where I'm going. This -- where is your technology guy? "Page down" isn't working here. Oh, there we go. "Arrow down" works. Okay. So the very first goal of your Transportation Element says the county's intent is to develop a safe and efficient mobility system, and those statements are propagated into the land-use code as March 1, 2021 Page 154 well where it gives you the ability to lessen the density or intensity of a development when it's been determined that that site or that development would create inconvenient or unsafe access or create traffic congestion. So some of the specific issues. I'll start with the comparison. I'm going to skip that slide. But I'll start with the comparison of the proposed development to the C-3 shopping center development option. You just need to know that the retail land use to which they have compared their development is that of a typical suburban shopping center, Publix, Walgreens, dry cleaners, and so forth. If a suburban shopping center is developed, it would only serve folks who live out on the beach. Why would someone who lives over by U.S. 41 come out to the beach to come to a grocery store when there's many grocery stores available on U.S. 41? In fact, i t may eliminate the need for people who live out on the beach to go over to U.S. 41, potentially even reducing traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road. So another option is maybe they build a beach-oriented retail. In that case, the trips that come to that retail would probably be coming to the beach anyway. So there would be no dramatic increase in traffic. But if they go for restaurants and night life and those types of land uses, those trips would arrive during the evening and not during the crunch time of daytime when people are trying to access the beach and access the parking garage. So the comparison that's been provided, even as Greg mentioned, not taking into consideration pass-by capture, the internalization of trips, it's a -- it's a dramatic overstatement of the comparison. This location, this is a beach environment. It's different. It's not your typical suburban neighborhood, and I'll come back to that point on another issue in a little while. So the bottom line to us is that comparison -- their comparison's March 1, 2021 Page 155 not just as dramatic as they are portraying. Second issue, quantity of parking at the county parking garage. It's inadequate. As they've adequately described, it fills up quickly, cars stack out in the middle of the road and, you know, unless -- and that issue's not going to be addressed unless the capacity of that parking garage is increased. The improvements to the access of the parking garage will help for -- help a little bit because it will get cars off the street quicker. But once it fills up, it's filled up again. So that's the fundamental issue of an inadequate county infrastructure in that area that literally causes problems that spill out into the street. Third issue is that -- is raised by residents of the -- oh, and I have a video clip here that illustrates the existing condition. In the interest of time, I'm going to forego showing it to you, but it does illustrate the traffic queues that occur, the heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic. If you're interested, I can show it to you in the Q-and-A period. Well, there it goes. Okay. An issue -- an issue of inadequate infrastructure is raised by residents of the existing developments on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that's the long delays and the difficulty they experience when they try to exit their sites to go left to go east towards U.S. 41. Residents of Barefoot Pelican and Regatta just east of the One Naples site as well as residents of the Beachwalk subdivision over by U.S. 41 have expressed to me the difficulties. Provision of a roundabout is part of a traffic circulation solution at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and South Bay Drive. Right over in this area. I guess I can point with my mouse as well. I sure can. Yeah, right in this area would provide opportunity for residents to make a right turn out of their site and make -- and then easily make a U-turn as a part of that roundabout operation. So a series of improvements have been proposed that are March 1, 2021 Page 156 summarized on this slide, but these solutions basically just reinforce the current conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. They are proposing to install a west-to-north right-turn lane which lengthens the length of the crosswalks and the installation of a traffic signal there to separate pedestrians and traffic time -wise. But just from observation -- personal observations of beach areas, when a thunderstorm rolls in or something, there's not a whole lot that will regulate and control pedestrians who want to get across the street in order to get out of the rain. So I think that solution has somewhat limited effectiveness. Improving the operation of the county parking garage, as I mentioned earlier, making the entry to the parking garage quicker, lengthening the turn lane, and providing the remote signage to advise when the garage is full are good, and they will help in the short term but, having looked at this from the longer -term perspective from your Long-Range Transportation Plan, which forecasts about 25 percent growth in traffic through this roadway corridor, the congestion at the parking garage entrance will return. So I had proposed in the Planning Commission meetings an alternate solution to long-term circulation needs, and that's the idea of routing your basic through-traffic around the north side and east side of One Naples and just physically separati ng vehicular traffic from the concentration of pedestrian traffic that happens at the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. During the Planning Commission hearing -- well, that does a better job of separating vehicles from pedestrians and bicycles, especially in that area. It will also reduce the opposing traffic at the parking garage entrance, making it easier for that left turn in to occur. During the Planning Commission hearing, there were some concerns raised with shifting traffic into a residential area, and maybe the community isn't ready for this solution yet. But this is a beach March 1, 2021 Page 157 community with multistory residential condominiums. It's different from a single-family residential neighborhood. If you look at other communities and how their beach facilities work, they take advantage of every opportunity they can to help with traffic circulation. Your circulation options here are limited. You've either got Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore, or you've got South Bay. And this -- the option to develop a bypass route on the north side and east side is an option you need to protect and develop as it is appropriate for future needs, but this is the step. This is the land-use plan amendment time. This is the step when some of those steps need to be taken. Safety at the access point. This is the slide I used in the Planning Commission hearing. I'm not going to go into it greatly. But the key here is that adding, on the right side, a new leg to the driveway connection point at Vanderbilt Beach Road at the parking garage, with a continued what -- what, in the long term, with the traffic congestion returning, there will be queues in the throat of the parking garage. Simply put, the effectiveness of the new leg relies on the left turn coming out of the site, which has the most subordinate right-of-way. Having to make a decision when to make his left turn when the westbound left turn has the superior, the priority right-of-way, when he's -- they're going to have to make the decision when to make that left turn when that -- when the guy making the westbound left turn is looking in the opposite direction and not seeing him exit the site. It's not a normal situation. It's complicated, it's unusual, and it, therefore, diminishes the safety of that location. I would recommend that that movement be relocated. You can take advantage of Center road [sic] as the access to the development, which fits nicely with the concept of developing traffic around the north and east side of One Naples or, as Greg mentioned, possibly March 1, 2021 Page 158 just restrict the movements to a right-out and right-in. The applicant has indicated that congestion may encourage users to choose other driveways. But let's face it, reliance on congestion to promote safety really isn't the best design strategy. So Land Development Code Section 4.07.02 was written to ensure that site access and surrounding road congestion issues are addressed. The question is, between the applicant's plans and the county's plans, are there solutions to all the issues, short-term and long-term issues, and are these solutions programmed, funded, and being implemented commensurate with the development to address the infrastructure deficiencies? In this case, they're not, and the proposed development will create new or contribute to these existing adverse conditions. So there are solutions to existing circulation problems that I would recommend you consider putting on the table and promoting and taking advantage of at this time in the development review process. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have a question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Here we are. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sir, so can you go to your alternatives on the traffic. That one. So you're suggesting that the circulation be re-routed so that it goes through South Bay over to Gulf Shore? MR. OLIVER: Not all of it, no. The site plan itself right now has a connection eastward along Center road connecting over here to the east to South Bay. It's got an exit to the north to South Bay. So if you wanted to head eastward towards U.S. 41, you could just go eastward across Center road to South Bay, take advantage of the March 1, 2021 Page 159 roundabout, and head east, or if you're coming in from the east from 41, you'd make the right turn onto South Bay and then immediately turn left into the site. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But you're just referring to the traffic -- sorry -- the traffic, the internal traffic, the folks that live in this area, Barefoot Pelican. You're not suggesting that South Bay become, like, a connector or something to divert traffic -- just the general traffic from Vanderbilt to Gulf Shore, are you? MR. OLIVER: I actually am. The interesting thing here is that of all the traffic that's coming westward on Vanderbilt Drive, 25 percent of this turns left to go into the Ritz-Carlton, 25 percent of it comes on over to the parking garage, stays on Vanderbilt Beach Road and goes into the parking garage or deals with the beach dropoff area, 50 percent of that traffic wants to head up north on Gulf Shore. So if you can provide a convenient alternate route where they don't have to get mixed in with the backups from Gulf Shore at Vanderbilt Drive or the backups associated with the parking gara ge, let them take the South Bay bypass, if you will -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. OLIVER: -- and circulate. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How wide is the right -- how wide is South Bay? MR. OLIVER: Well, the developer -- the developer has a commitment to improve to 10-foot traffic lanes plus bike lanes on either side. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And was -- I thought it was brought up that the potential for a roundabout, that there was right-of-way issues, that maybe that would require -- there wouldn't be enough land there just to put one in. Is that -- was that your understanding? March 1, 2021 Page 160 MR. OLIVER: That is what I heard this morning, and I kind of agree that a roundabout would probably, in all likelihood, require some corner clip or land acquisition on the south side, on the Ritz Carlton property; however, when you consider the advantages that a roundabout provides, it could be well worth an investment -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. OLIVER: -- along those lines. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And if there's a right-in -- if there's a right-out only, if the connections on Vanderbilt Beach Road are right-out only -- and I thought that's what I heard you say. MR. OLIVER: Yeah, the possibility of a right-in here and -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. OLIVER: -- and a right-out here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So then everyone -- oh, just on that -- on that entrance? MR. OLIVER: Yes, yes. Yeah, yeah, because the problem movement is the people trying to come out and turn left onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Which they -- which they do at South Bay at both ends? MR. OLIVER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And -- MR. OLIVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. OLIVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. No more -- Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And maybe it's not for you, but I thought I saw in one of the drawings a roundabout at the main March 1, 2021 Page 161 entrance there where -- right across from our parking garage where we wouldn't have right-of-way issues. MR. OLIVER: I have not provided any such -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So all that's proposed right now is an extension of the left turn into the parking garage and a traffic control signal, okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just real briefly. Mr. Oliver, I believe we discussed this at the Planning Commission, and you acknowledged what -- I think what Commissioner Solis was pointing out, is there would have to be a taking of some land of the Ritz-Carlton for that option to work? MR. OLIVER: I probably -- yeah, my instinct is probably so. I have not drawn a roundabout to illustrate the extent of that, but my assessment is it would take a corner clip where, basically, Ritz-Carlton has landscaping and some drainage. MR. YOVANOVICH: What about on the north side where you have the realtor office for -- I think it's Premier Sotheby? MR. OLIVER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you need to also take some of their property as well? MR. OLIVER: I'm not sure. It depends on how much property, perhaps, the Stock Development might be willing to provide. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, what happens if -- well, I mean, you heard the testimony at the Planning Commission by Collier County Transportation staff saying that this solution is not the solution that they recommend, correct? MR. OLIVER: I heard them testify to that; however, at the same time, I don't think they necessarily were thinking 25 to 50 years in the future. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, we'll stand by the March 1, 2021 Page 162 county's recommendation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One other question. So if there's a right-out only at the new proposed entrance, then whatever percentage of the traffic that you said goes in there is going to have to go right, and then how are they going to get back to 41? MR. OLIVER: Well, in all honesty, sir, the applicant's traffic impact analysis showed zero cars making the right turn out at that location. I think they assigned their traffic eastward to South Bay or northward. I guess if they were turning right, they would have ended up going north on Gulf Shore. So I think they just assumed all the traffic heading north on Gulf Shore would have gone to the north to South Bay and then made a right turn. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I'm asking you, because you had given us some percentages that 25 percent -- MR. OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- went to the Ritz, 25 -- so whatever traffic would be coming out would have to go westward, and then to get back to 41 would go what way? They'd have to go all the way up Gulf Shore to 111th and Bluebill? MR. OLIVER: No. No, no. Okay. So first of all, let me go back and confirm one thing. The 25 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent numbers, okay, the first -- this is 25 -- of all the traffic coming west on Vanderbilt Beach -- west on Vanderbilt Beach Road, 25 percent goes into the Ritz-Carlton -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. OLIVER: -- 25 percent goes to the parking garage or deals with the beach -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. OLIVER: -- and probably returns to the parking garage, March 1, 2021 Page 163 50 percent wants to head up to Gulf Shore. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So no -- if you do the math, then nobody's pulling into here, is what you're saying? MR. OLIVER: Well, yeah, but I'm talking about the existing traffic, just -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. OLIVER: -- getting a feel for what it is. So if there's somebody from this site that wants to go back towards U.S. 41, I would say the best move to make would be to go to the east on Center road and go out this way right here to South Bay and then come down South Bay, go around the roundabout and head over to 41. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Banks [sic], are we talking about roundabouts, or are we talking about traffic circles? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Oliver. MR. OLIVER: I think -- well, let's not confuse with -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a difference. MR. OLIVER: Yeah. They are different, and I would say roundabout. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You'd say. MR. OLIVER: That's what I would. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you want the larger -- MR. OLIVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you aware of the roundabouts -- or the traffic circles on Seventh? MR. OLIVER: On? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seventh Avenue North in our city? MR. OLIVER: Ah, no, I'm not. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe you want to take a look at those. March 1, 2021 Page 164 MR. OLIVER: We're dealing with 120-foot diameter here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. That's not my traffic -- MR. OLIVER: They're big. They're reasonably big, yes. Roundabout may not be the absolute best solution. A four-way stop may work pretty doggone well as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. OLIVER: To me, there's many advantages for a roundabout. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Excuse me. Would you like -- would you like just to bring that forward and to have the microphone so that you can -- you can sit up here? MS. SPECTOR: I should be okay for just the short amount of time that I'll be speaking. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. SPECTOR: Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Spector. I'm an attorney with Roetzel & Andress. I represent the Regatta at Vanderbilt Beach Commons Association. It's the master association for the Regatta at Vanderbilt Beach Condominiums, which is just to the east of this project. The Regatta is also represented by Greg Stuart and Bill Oliver, who you just heard from. You'll also be hearing from some of my colleagues, who are counsel to other groups in the area, and I just wanted to, in addition to adopting the testimony of Mr. Stuart and Mr. Oliver, also adopt their testimony into what I'll be presenting today. The first thing that I do want to present -- and I must admit I'm a little confused about what was presented earlier to do -- is whether it is appropriate to move forward with the application in the manner in which it's been presented to you today. One question I have is whether -- it's still not entirely clear to me March 1, 2021 Page 165 whether the DaRuMa parcel is being considered part of the PUD, because it's being incorporated into the PUD ordinance, but at the same time it's not being incorporated as part of the legal description of the PUD. And it's my understanding, just from hearing around the room today, that it's going to be a stand-alone C-3 parcel with the standard C-3 regulations, which is also confusing to me because I've never seen it where you put conditions on a conventional zoning district in a PUD document for property that the applicant does not own and has not submitted an application to you on and has not even presented that he has the authority from the owner, at least not that we've seen, to make that representation to you . If it is a part of the Planned Unit Development, I have concerns regarding the notice, because the notice that was provided did not include the DaRuMa parcel. So I just wanted to put those concerns on the record. Is there someone that wanted to respond to that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich, I asked him to wait, but if you'd like to open this dialogue, I'd be happy to do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: The plan is to have an offsite commitment incorporated into the Planned Unit Development document limiting the uses on the DaRuMa piece. Those limited conditions would go into effect when we own the parcel. If we never own the parcel, we never have a One Naples project. We are not changing the zoning on the C-3 piece that is the DaRuMa piece. It will stand alone as a C-3 development parcel. It's not being incorporated into the PUD document because I'm very aware of the notice issues if we were trying to incorporate land in a PUD that we never -- we didn't go through the proper process. So it will be an offsite condition. It is very similar to an offsite condition that was done for the Eagle Creek PUD where there were offsite conditions imposed on the straight zoning for the commercial shopping center that was on the corner of 951, Collier Boulevard, and March 1, 2021 Page 166 U.S. 41. So we are imposing those conditions, and they're only conditioned upon our actually going forward with acquiring the DaRuMa piece, demolishing the DaRuMa piece. And if we never do -- never acquire that piece or never demolish that piece, we don't have a Naples One project. That's what that language says. MS. SPECTOR: And I know this is somewhat unconventional, but since Mr. Yovanovich is up here, I had a few other questions. Can I just ask them to you with, hopefully -- well, one is that I did not see that the proposed use is allowed in the C-3 zoning district except I didn't have much time to look. So I just wanted to k now whether you had seen that it is a permitted -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, it is an allowed use under -- MS. SPECTOR: As what? I was just curious what you're classifying -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll give me a second, I actually brought my SIC code book to do that. MS. SPECTOR: Okay. I did not have that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically, under the C-3 zoning district, condominium associations can own property and develop amenities for the condominium association. So that is -- that's the SIC code we're using. MS. SPECTOR: Okay. I'm not going to trust you on that. MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't have to trust me. MS. SPECTOR: Okay. But thank you for that clarification. Then one other thing is, do you have a current map of what the project looks like now? I just had a question regarding the DaRuMa parcel. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'd have to come over there, pull up my PowerPoint presentation. MS. SPECTOR: I didn't know if you just had it. March 1, 2021 Page 167 MR. YOVANOVICH: I may be -- Sarah, if you give me two seconds, I'm sure I can find a hard copy of -- do you want the site plan with DaRuMa on it? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Give me two seconds, and I'll do it. MS. SPECTOR: Not that one. Where they had the actual -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If someone will give me a hard copy to put on the visualizer. Keith, can you put the site plan with DaRuMa on it. MS. SPECTOR: I just wanted to -- I was not clear on whether -- because I know that that part of Center Street's not included in the vacation, and I could not recall whether -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not vacating any of Center Street. MS. SPECTOR: I just couldn't recall if the DaRuMa parcel -- I mean, the park was going into the street, so I just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It is not. It is staying on the DaRuMa parcel. MS. SPECTOR: Perfect. And I just wanted to clarify that before placing any objections on the record, since you were up here. Okay. Perfect. So I still have concerns with Mr. Yovanovich's clarifications, because I don't understand how the PUD document encumbers other property, and there's nothing in the PUD document that requires them to encumber that property to be used for that purpose because this is not part of the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: There is, and I showed you the developer commitment language that specifically says that we are doing this offsite commitment and limiting those uses. MS. SPECTOR: I just don't see how, with it not being part of the PUD -- and that document governs the PUD. It's the development order for the PUD, how it encumbers the DaRuMa March 1, 2021 Page 168 property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we just -- we have specifically said in the PUD that there will be an offsite commitment. The legal description is described for that. Staff will put a note on the zoning map so when you go look at the zoning map you'll see a footnote on the C-3 DaRuMa piece that sends you to the PUD so you'll be able to track the conditions that are limited on the C-3. MS. SPECTOR: Okay. I still -- and not having the opportunity to look at this with it being new today, I don't know whether I agree with that, so I just wanted to place that on the record, whether that is proper or not. As you've heard time and again today, we did not have the opportunity to go back and revise our presentation. So I do have a short presentation. If you -- yeah, Troy. When I was before the Planning Commission, a large portion of my presentation was focused on the Growth Management Plan amendment, and the -- I'm sorry -- the applicant's failure to provide relevant and appropriate data and analysis and surveys, studies, and data regarding the area. And as such, it was not proper to be approved as presented. My position is still the same on that, that there has not been enough evidence and data submitted onto the record to approve the Growth Management Plan amendment. So it's still my recommendation that you deny that. And I would like to incorporate my Planning Commission presentation into my comments here because today I would like to focus on the land development amendment for the MPUD. If you noted in your package, the staff or -- the executive summary included a long list of legal considerations to consider whether it's appropriate to approve this rezoning request. Oh, it's "down." Sorry about that. So going through those, since we did not have a revised staff March 1, 2021 Page 169 report, the last thing I have to look at is the staff report that was issued for the October 1st Planning Commission meeting. There were 26 legal considerations presented t o you. Staff found that seven criteria had not been met by the application, and there's an additional six that I would argue have not been met. That means that there's half of the legal considerations that have not been met, and it's -- when staff had presented those to you, I want to, sorry, point out one more time, it said that you are able to disapprove this request if you find that one of these cannot be answered in the positive. And they've pointed out seven, as I mentioned, and there's actually half that haven't been met. So conformity with the GMP. In two places in those legal considerations, staff has mentioned that the requests will only be consistent with the GMP if the GMP amendment is approved. And unlike what Mr. Yovanovich said, I don't agree with him that there are certain instances in which it is appropriate to adopt a Growth Management Plan amendment that only benefits one property for a specific project. So an "it depends" analysis is not anywhere in the code or in the Growth Management Plan or statutes, for that matter. So it's not currently conforming with the GMP and will only -- if you adopt the amendment, that, as I started out with, should not be approved. The internal and external compatibility, even with the changes proposed by the applicant, the development standards are still not directly compatible, and there has been no competent substantial evidence to support 165-foot height. Staff has not provided anything to support the change from its 125-foot recommendation and, respectfully, Mr. Mulhere's recitation of the various definitions of compatible and complementary and then saying just look at it is not competent substantial evidence to support that it is compatible now that they have lowered it to 10 stories over two stories of parking. March 1, 2021 Page 170 Additionally, the setbacks. Earlier you were speaking about setbacks where it is not on Vanderbilt Beach Road or on Gulf Shore. The setbacks are not just for those who are across the street from the property, like Barefoot Pelican or Vanderbilt Palms. It's for everybody. Setbacks are meant to address not only compatibility with your neighbors but with the area as a whole, and that's one of the important aspects that you look at to determine whether the mass of the project is -- and the scale of the project is appropriate is how much land it's taking up and how far back it's set from the road, and it does not meet with the surrounding property in that regard. The adequacy of open space. This -- you had heard Ms. Jenkins read a part of the definition of your open-space definition from the code. She didn't read the first part, and this is what Mr. Stuart was referring to, and I just wanted to read that first part rather than just refer to it. It actually says that open space are areas that are not occupied by buildings, impervious parking areas, streets, driveways, or loading areas. So it specifically says, may not be occupied by a building. So to count in the rooftop is not sufficient and, as Mr. Stuart pointed out, we don't know what amount of open space they're providing because there's been no calculations to know whether or not they would actually meet any sort of open -space requirement provided that they incorporate the DaRuMa parcel. The existing land-use pattern. The staff does recognize here that the project will intensify the residential land-use pattern, and I think Mr. Stuart provided testimony on the record that supports that statement. Creation of an isolated district. The staff here, they say that there are existing PUD projects in the nearby area, but it's disingenuous to say that that does not create an isolated district, because this PUD is not anywhere near what the other PUDs in the area look like. The other PUD in the area, one is -- which we've March 1, 2021 Page 171 already said is not a comparison is Pelican Bay, which is much, much different, and then you have the Regatta, which has, as Mr. Stuart pointed out, much more in the way of land and setbacks. So we do think that that does create an isolated district. A changed or changing conditions. This is where staff has specifically said that the proposed change is not necessary, so there's really nothing more to state there. The influence on neighborhood living conditions. This is important because the original staff report, the staff report that is still in the record, specifically says that there are many components of this project that are not directly compatible. And if there wasn't going to be an influence on the neighborhood living conditions, they wouldn't have proposed a recommendation that cut the height from 183 feet, which it was higher than that at the Planning Commission, all the way down to 125 -- actually 76 feet with the option to go up to 125 feet. So they -- staff obviously recognizes that there's an influence on the neighborhood living conditions even though they don't say it in their legal considerations. Grant of a special privilege. Here staff says that consistency with the Future Land Use Element is determined to be consistent with the public welfare, but you don't get consistency with the Future Land Use Element until you amend the Growth Management Plan. So that's where we go back to the Growth Management Plan amendment not being appropriate for a specific parcel for one project. Then the use of the property with the current zoning. Again, staff very clearly says that they could use the property as it is and develop it as it is. So there's no real need for this rezoning. Scale in comparison to the neighborhood. Staff does recognize that it exceeds the existing C-3 zoning district regulations and, again, had recommended conditions to lower what the applicant had March 1, 2021 Page 172 provided. And, lastly, the physical characteristics degree of site alteration. The staff cites to the vacation. This project could not happen were it not for the vacation. So there is a huge site alteration that's required in order to be able to develop it. So we would ask that you not approve the Growth Management Plan amendment, and if you do see fit to approve the Growth Management Plan amendment and approve the MPUD, we would ask that you impose the staff's original conditions, as Greg had mentioned in his presentation. Thank you. Were there any questions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't see any. Thank you very much. MS. SPECTOR: Thank you. MR. BROOKES: Good afternoon. My name is Attorney Ralf Brookes, and I represent Save Vanderbilt Beach, Inc. I'm an attorney, and I'm certified in the field of city, county, and local government law. In fact, I've been certifi ed since 2004, and I was just recently renewed this year. You have to take a test, and you have a peer review, and you have to keep up additional CLEs. And some of you are lawyers on the Commission, and you understand what it means to be certified in this area. But I've also served as Assistant County Attorney for Sarasota County. I was Assistant County Attorney and land-use litigation attorney for Monroe County, which is the Florida Keys, and I've been City Attorney sitting in the chair similar to whe re Jeff sits for cities, for Bradenton Beach, Madeira Beach, St. Pete Beach, and a small little town called Yankee Town in Levy County. All of these cities have one thing in common: They're all in the Coastal High Hazard Area, and they have barrier islands, and they're on the west coast of Florida. March 1, 2021 Page 173 So I've dealt with Coastal High Hazard Area issues, barrier island issues, traffic, building on beaches. Everything from very small -- small towns, low-rises like Bradenton Beach to, perhaps, the highest of high-rises in Madeira Beach and St. Pete Beach that has pretty big high-rises. I'm going to just be pretty short today. I want to give you a little bit of a legal overview on the tests, the legal standards there are for the two different major applications you have in front of you, is the Comp Plan amendment and the rezoning, and not really talk too much about the landscaping plan or the street vacation. Those will be dependent on your two other actions. Prior to 2011, first you did a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and then you had up to a year to get a rezoning. In 2011, the legislature said you can do rezonings and plan amendments concurrently; you could do them at the same time if you wish. They also changed small-scale plan amendments. You used to have only a certain number that you could approve per year, and you also couldn't adopt plan amendments like more than, like, twice a year. So all these things are changing now to speed up, streamline the process, which is a good thing in most cases, but sometimes you'll have a controversial project like this one, and that's when things begin to mash up, when you're doing plan amendments and rezonings at the same time. I like to keep things separated in my head, and it's something you'll have to do, too, when you're analyzing this. Plan amendments -- all plan amendments are now legislative. I used to think small-scale plan amendments might be quasi-judicial, but there was some case law that went to the Florida Supreme Court, and they said, no, all plan amendments. Any time you're amending a Comprehensive Plan for what your community is going to look like over the next 30 years of planning, your long -range planning cycle, March 1, 2021 Page 174 all those are legislative determinations. So you can vote to change a plan amendment, but you can vote to deny a plan amendment for any reason. The only thing that you're held to is you can't deny one for suspect class, you know, based on race or ethnicity or religion. You have to have a rational basis if you are going to deny a plan amendment. But your rational basis can be simply that you like the plan as it is now, and the time is not now to change the plan. One of the speakers said, you know, is it sound public policy? That could be a question for you for a plan amendment. You c an deny the plan amendment because you think it would offer too much mass, bulk, height, or even density in the Coastal High Hazard Area, something that you're not willing and ready and able to handle just yet. Substantively, I would adopt the testimony. I'm not an expert myself in the field of planning or Coastal High Hazard Areas. The Planning Commission, Dan Trescott, who is a Planner and a Hurricane Evacuation Expert, he was with the Regional Planning Council, and he worked on your evacuation plans for Southwest Florida for many years, he pointed out that under the state statute 163.3178(8)(a), it says, you have to have a level of service of no more than 16 hours out-of-county evacuation time, okay; 16 hours. And that your latest hurricane evacuation model and plan for 2020 in Collier County says that you have -- believe it or not, this is incredible -- 96 hours out-of-county evacuation time, and you have 94-hours time to shelter. So if someone was leaving the Coastal High Hazards Area, it takes them 96 hours, which is quite a number days, 24, 48. You know, it's, like, three, four days. So you usually don't have enough time to evacuate. By the time they tell you to evacuate, if you r evacuation time is 96 hours, you're going to be behind the wheel, March 1, 2021 Page 175 maybe, while the storm's coming in. So the statute also says, if you can't meet this 17 hours, and it says no -- no county/city in the state with Coastal High Hazard Area can have a level of service higher than 17 -- 16. So even if you wanted to adopt 96 hours and say, well, we meet it, you can't do that. So you're many, many days behind the level of service for hurricane evacuation. So that could be a reason for you as a legitimate public policy purpose to say no to the plan amendment at this time, because you're doubling the density in the Coastal High Hazard Area, or approximately. There's some new numbers that came out today. But even with those new numbers, you're still increasing the density in the Coastal High Hazard Area. Again, you're increasing the height, you are increasing some setbacks, but other setbacks you are not protecting. I don't think zero feet to the waterline is a good setback. I mean, most -- like, my Yankee Town, we have 50 feet. You know, we have 200 feet to wetlands. You know, they're pretty conservative and environmental. But zero to the waterline is very, very -- it's zero lot line. And that's something that the City of Sarasota has been embarrassed by recently because they have approved some zero lot line tall high-rise hotel/condo buildings right at the main corners of their building -- of their downtown. No one realized what it would look like till it went up, and now everyone is up in arms, why would they ever approve this zero lot line on this corner? So the plan amendment is legislative. You can say no for any rational basis, any public planning purpose. Quasi-judicial enters into it at the rezoning phase. A PUD, Planned Unit Development, believe it or not, is its own zoning category. So you might have a zoning category of C-3, but planned urban development is for one site, but it's its own zoning category. March 1, 2021 Page 176 You heard your planning staff, Anita, say that density -- they did not include DaRuMa for density. So if you're not including DaRuMa for density because it's not part of the PUD, you really shouldn't be including DaRuMa for open space because it's not part of the PUD. The DaRuMa was not advertised in the legal notices for the Comp Plan. There's supposed to be a map of the affected area, and it's not in that. Under 163 you're supposed to have advertised the plan amendment with maps. The rezoning, also, for the PUD doesn't show DaRuMa within the PUD. So it's either in the PUD or not in the PUD. You can't have it, really, both ways. It was not considered by the Planning Commission. It was not provided in advance of the meeting. You know, we don't think it's proper that DaRuMa be introduced now at this last minute, because when you're adding DaRuMa and you're saying, oh, it's just all going to be open space, the addition of DaRuMa to the parcels allows you some design modifications that could have occurred. Some of the buildings could have been moved around slightly because of DaRuMa but, more importantly, we should ask about the ingress and egress. Can we use the DaRuMa parcel to ingress and egress to the site off Center, thereby avoiding all the impacts to Vanderbilt Beach Road at that critical -- critical intersection with the beach. You heard about that from the testimony of the traffic engineer. So the rezoning, you have a two-pronged legal standard under this case called Snyder versus Brevard County. The first is that it's the developer's initial burden to show they're consistent with the Comp Plan. And so if you pass the Comp Plan amendment, maybe it addresses some specifics, but it has to be specific with each and every element of the Comp Plan, including goals, objectives, and policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan. Even if they show that it is consistent with everything in the March 1, 2021 Page 177 Comp Plan, you can still deny a rezoning for a legitimate public purpose, and that's not defined by the Florida Supreme Court but it means, again, basically, any rational basis. The Supreme Court explained that the Comp Plan just sets a long-term maximum goal for the planning horizon. Thirty years from now it might be appropriate, but at this point in time it's not. So you could still say no to something that's consistent with the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan is a long-term maximum; it's not a guaranteed short-term minimum. You don't have to approve a rezoning even if it is consistent with the Comp Plan. Quasi-judicial, you look at competent substantial evidence. And some people will tell you, well, if someone's a citizen and they're a layperson, that's not competent substantial evidence; you can't rely on it. That's not true. If a citizen lives in the neighborhood and they have fact-based observations, things that they observe, aerial photographs, zoning maps, the things that they have seen and exhibits that they put in, those can be considered. That's under the Blumenthal case and the Sport Acres case. There's three or four cases that say you can consider citizen-based testimony to support a denial. If you are going to vote to deny this project, I would advise a local government to deny the plan amendment, because once you approve the plan amendment, you create certain expectations, and then you kick in that second part of Snyder. Is it consistent with the Comp Plan? Well, it might be an easy determination as to that small-scale plan amendment. Does it meet those criteria? But you've also got to look at everything else. And once you have a Comp Plan amendment in place, if you remove that Comp Plan amendment, then you might run into trouble with Bert Harris down the road. Bert Harris says, after 1995 anything that you do to downzone property could raise a Bert Harris March 1, 2021 Page 178 claim. Now, you would still have the rezoning. Maybe they'll qualify because they don't have the rezoning, but you're setting your steps in motion. You're taking that first step towards giving them property rights entitlements under the Bert Harris Act, and you don't want to give those entitlements until you're ready to grant the approvals for the rezoning. So if you don't like something in the rezoning, the mass, the height, the building setbacks, anything with the -- that you want to consider more and send it back to the drawing board, if you don't do a continuance or continue this hearing, which has already been denied, if you want to deny this -- this development application, you really want to start with simply denying the plan amendment, because that cannot be reversed. You're going to prevail there. If you approve the plan amendment, you should know that there is an administrative hearing process that can happen for Coastal High Hazard Area violations. You wind up in an administrative law proceeding, a DOAH. That's further on down the road. I don't think we need to go there now. This is a public-policy decision for you guys right now as to whether or not to approve this -- this change that would increase density in the coastal high hazard, it would increase the heights of these buildings, and it would vastly increase the bulk, as you've seen in the 3D models and presentations. I don't have anything more, but if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. And I guess we would also adopt the following testimony that's going to come from Anthony Pires and Bill Schuman on contract zoning and on spot zoning. Those are common law zoning doctrines. Take a little bit of time to get into, so I'm going to let somebody else talk about it, but we'll adopt those objections. March 1, 2021 Page 179 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. No questions up here. Thank you. MR. BROOKES: I'm supposed to remind you Bill Schuman and Buzz Victor are on some kind of Zoom. You're supposed to pull them up when their time comes up. MR. MILLER: I wasn't aware of that, ma'am. Let me check to see if they're on there. I heard Buzz Victor. What was the other name? MR. BROOKES: William Schuman or Bill Schuman. MR. MILLER: I have a William Schuman on Zoom right now, ma'am, but I do not see -- oh, well, I'm guessing Buzz is not his real first name. I should probably be looking under his actual first name. MR. BROOKES: William Schuman and then Victor, Arthur. MR. MILLER: Arthur Victor. That was my mistake, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. That's quite all right. MR. MILLER: I do not see an Arthur Victor. I see Mr. Schuman online. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's hear from Mr. Schuman. MR. MILLER: Oscar, could you please unmute Mr. William Schuman. Mr. Schuman, you're going to get a notice on your computer or your phone to unmute. Please do so. MR. SCHUMAN: This is William Schuman. I've just unmuted myself. Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, we can. Before you begin, Ms. -- Commissioner -- Chairman Taylor, excuse me, should I be timing this, this comment? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I believe they're still part, but it should be 10 to 15 minutes. MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Schuman, go ahead, please. March 1, 2021 Page 180 MR. SCHUMAN: Yes, thank you very much. My name is William Schuman. I'm going to speak about just one issue today, and that is that Stock's proposal, even as modified as we've heard it today, is unlawful spot zoning under all the Florida case law. There's the Florida Supreme Court of Florida Appellate Courts and the Florida Statutes. I've written several letters. They're in your packets at Pages 1183 to 1223, and those materials include an opinion letter from counsel for another one of our members of Save Vanderbilt Beach who agrees that this -- that this effort is unlawful spot zoning. I'm going to start by very briefly providing a quote from a Florida appellate case. It explains, spot zoning is -- and I'm quoting now -- piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of land -- that's this case -- to a greater density leading to disharmony with the surrounding area. That's this case. It gives preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole. That's this case. Stock, even as modified as we've heard and we're all acting on the fly to a bit -- to a degree, but doesn't matter with respect to the conclusion here. Stock's asking for, apparently, 60 percent more density than it's permitted. It's asking for enormous relief on setbacks and, most importantly, as I understand the numbers, it is still asking for way more than double the permissible height. This is unlawful spot zoning, in my judgment. It's the poster child for spot -- for spot zoning. It was before their modification. It remains so, except maybe slightly less, frankly. You cannot compare the buildings in Pelican Bay to the proposed project. Pelican Bay's a vastly different community, vastly different regulatory controls and constraints. It's in a different zone. If you were allowed to compare buildings in the next zone over, your zoning laws would be meaningless because the next zone's rules March 1, 2021 Page 181 would be important to nearby laws -- nearby zones just because you can see them or they're near-by. And, not surprisingly, Florida case law prohibits importing neighboring zone's rules, because it would result in impermissible spot zoning. There's a case called Macchato. And, again, briefly, a comprehensive land-use plan -- that's what we've got here -- legislatively sets zoning norms for each zone, not a single piece of property. And the point of it is to prevent spot zoning. Collier County's Land Development Code, and it's Section 1.05.01.F, reminds us all that each zoning district has its own purpose and establishes its own density and density regulations. Section 9.04.03 allows a variance in a zone, like what you're being asked for here, only if it will be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land. They've not shown that. And Section 2.03.07.L, which speaks to the Vanderbilt Beach residential tourist overlay requires -- and now I'm quoting -- requires to be sensitive to scale and compatibility in the Vanderbilt Beach area and prevent canyon-like effect on Gulf Shore Drive. Now, it's important for the commissioners to understand, we're not just dealing here with one property, though there's only one property right now on the table. The stakes are way bigger. Right now there is nothing compatible. You just can't find something compatible to what they're proposing to build. But if you allow this, then the commissioners are going to be powerless, probably, to stop the next building and the next building and the next building because right now there's nothing comparable, but if you allow this one to be built, the next developer is going to cite this one, and you'll be hard pressed to find a basis not to. This is the one, right now, where there is no comparable basis for allowing a building of this scale and scope. If -- and if you allow this to go on, you're going to have an entire neighborhood, thousands March 1, 2021 Page 182 of residents who've built a neighborhood over decades that are going to have their property and their neighborhood taken away from them for the benefit of a single developer. This isn't a public-works project. This is a single developer. This is what spot zoning is defined in the case law. And Stock can't get around this legal impediment. They can't get around it by dealing with the Growth Management Plan first, and they say, okay, we'll do that first; now we have a way out. And you can't do that. There's a case called Macchato that explains that the prohibition about amending for a single piece of property, as opposed to a whole zone, is the only way -- now, I'm quoting -- the only way to, one, regulate and maintain land use by zones; two, make individual zoning changes conform to a legislative plan; and, three, avoid arbitrary spot-zoning change that permits the use of individual parcels to depart from a plan. And Florida Statute 163.31941 says that amending a GMP can only be done, quote, as to the area of the entire zone, end quote. Not a single piece of property like what's happening here. Macchato explains why. Macchato explains it under 163. A local Comprehensive Plan, like they want to change, they're defined in the law to not be zoning laws. They are a, quote, limitation on a local government's zoning powers. That's the significance of the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that you can't come in and move one -- and address -- adjust or address one parcel ignoring the rest. That's what spot zoning is intended to eliminate and prevent. Now, in the -- and it's consistent with that, and the lawyers on the panel will understand, particularly, some of these conc epts. Because of the law, because Stock can't ask you to do this at these numbers in this design, the commissioners' judgment -- this is a matter of law. Courts do not exercise deference. They're not going March 1, 2021 Page 183 to look to see, did you have enough of a basis? And you're the pros, which you are, but in a typical circumstance when they defer to you because you're the pros, that's not this. This is a matter of law. It requires de novo review by a court applying strict scrutiny. There's no deference to the commissioners if it is unlawful spot zoning. It's a de novo review. And in my humble judgment, a reviewing court looking at these statistics, particularly the height and the additional density, they're going to find that it's unlawful spot zoning, and they should. I'm going to give you, just in closing, a brief example. It's very imperfect, but I think it illustrates exactly what we've got going on on Gulf Shore Drive. The speed limit on Gulf Shore Drive is 25 miles an hour. If Stock gets in a car and drives 27, 28, it's not allowed to do it, but will he get away with it? Is it within the rule of reason? Is it permissible? For sure. We all know that. What if he goes 31 or 32 miles an hour? You're getting right to the fringe. And if, instead, he drives 65 miles an hour down this little two-lane road with people biking and walking, the authorities are going to grab him by the larynx and they're going to say, no, you're destroying -- your risk of destroying property and lives would be too great. This proposal is 65 miles an hour in a 30-mile zone. If he was asking for 32, 33, we'd all be having a different conversation. Where the line is, pretty tough for anybody, lawyers or not, to know, but at double the height, more than double, at 60 percent more density with open spaces that don't conform with a single piece of property, this is the -- this is the poster child for spot zoning. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seeing none, thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I know Mr. Victor is important to this group here. We're having trouble getting him connected on March 1, 2021 Page 184 Zoom. I'm having my IT people work with him behind the scenes right now, but we don't have him as of yet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So -- MR. BROOKES: He said he's in the queue. I don't know, was there a phone number on there? MR. MILLER: I've been talking with about six different people about this. I have Oscar in the hallway trying to resolve this issue, ma'am. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just audio? Can he do just audio? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. At this point, I know of two representatives of two groups -- one is here, the other is Pelican Bay -- that have been allotted 15 minutes each, and so I would ask Mr. Pires to come forward, please. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome. MR. PIRES: Members of the County Commission, good afternoon. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, a group of almost a thousand residents in the North Collier area. The boundaries of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association of the area, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Vanderbilt Drive on the east, Vanderbilt Beach Road on the south, and the Cocohatchee River/Wiggins Pass on the north. I've appeared before the Planning Commission on this issue, and I know the record of the Planning Commission, all the transcripts, are included as part of these agenda packets, and I will try not t o be repetitive. And I adopt some of the arguments and the arguments that were made, for example, by Sarah Spector and Mr. Brookes with regards to the legal issues and also the objections to this particular March 1, 2021 Page 185 application. Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association have tried for years to work with Stock Development. They met with them originally. And the original project, as you know, was one big building, and now we're at the point where it is to be two towers, and I would submit to you on that point that if the Board is inclined to approve the PUD -- we oppose, first of all, the Growth Management Plan amendment, and we oppose the PUD. If the Board is inclined to grant the Growth Management Plan amendment, you need to take the units down to 140. It still says 172 in that ordinance. So I know the applicant said that they're willing in the PUD to reduce it to 140; I did not hear that as to the Growth Management Plan amendment. I would like to assume that it would be the same but, for consistency purposes, I think we don't want to keep that door wide open for 172. Again, we oppose it. We don't believe there's appropriate data and analysis for all the arguments raised by Mr. Stuart and Ms. Spector and Mr. Brookes, but if the Board's inclined to approve the amendment, please eliminate that 172; bring it down to 140. With regards to -- the concerns that Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association have are many. Back a number of years ago, the Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay district was adopted after much input, a couple years, thousands of residents in Vanderbilt Beach. And the idea was to avoid canyonization, high intensity, high density, and, you know, additional units in the Coastal High Hazard Area and adverse impacts to air, light, and view. Those are the exact same issues that are at issue today with the proposed One Naples project. The project has been, apparently, substantially modified today. We're all finding out today at the last minute what that might consist of, because I'm still not quite sure. I think there are too many variables. But those issues, those concepts we thought -- Vanderbilt March 1, 2021 Page 186 Beach folks thought were resolved many, many years ago, and we would submit that if you were to approve a development of greater intensity and density, then along Gulf Shore Drive, which is in the Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay, it would result in an erosion of those protections, because that would be used as a precedence for compatibility/complementary in the future. You've heard that argument before. So with regards to that, we agree also with the now increased setbacks, with regards to the height of the towers being 125 feet, the tower being set back 35 feet, everything else being 25-foot setbacks all the way around. And on the issue of the towers, I would suggest there is no language in the Development Standards Table that says they have to build two towers. The Development Standards Table has a footnote that talks about in Exhibit C in setbacks, but there is -- the Exhibit C is an exhibit that does not show the towers. I would suggest specific language in there prohibiting one big wide building and prohibiting three towers on that Tract MU 1B specifically included in the ordinance so there's no question in the future, because whether or not Stock Development will be the developer or someone else will acquire it, that clarity needs to be in there, in my humble opinion, for the Board, for the county, and for the community. With regards to -- additionally, we think we need to spell out the 25 percent open space. I know staff says that's calculated at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unfortunately, that happens without public notice. That's purely at the staff level. No one -- no member of the public knows that is going on, so the opportunity to provide input into that process to have appropriate calculation of usable open space as defined in the code is really not readily available to the public during the SDP process. It's not a real valid March 1, 2021 Page 187 process to provide input. We have other concerns with regards to the DaRuMa piece. And perhaps I heard Mr. Yovanovich wrong. I've known Rich for a long time. We've generally sparred. We actually worked together on one project. We shocked everybody that day. But, generally, we are on opposite sides of the issues. But if I heard him correctly, he said, if we do not close DaRuMa, we'll not do the One Naples project. So it sounds like contingent or contractor zoning to me. You're not doing it based upon what you know today. You're doing it based on what may or may not happen in the future. Additionally, typically, and as required by the administrative code and the Land Development Code, as I read it, in the PUD application, a person has to submit a covenant of unified control or an affidavit of authorization saying, hi, I'm the owner of the property. I have it under contract to ABC. ABC is authorized to act as my agent, and I'm going to be bound by whatever you -all do. I've not seen that, and I've not even been told that that exists. So I think for the Board to rely upon the representation that DaRuMa will be subject to this, absent -- first of all, I'm not sure it's appropriate, because I think this contingent or contract zoning. Secondly, you have no evidence that the DaRuMa property owner has agreed to this contingent on its property. And as Rich said, I think, only conditioned on the closing of the DaRuMa parcel. So again, I think it's inappropriate to approve it based upon that, and I'd request denial of this application. Again, I echo the concerns and the positions and objections raised by Sarah Spector. There's no property ownership disclosure form that shows DaRuMa as part of this deal. There's no evidence of unified control, that DaRuMa's under control. And I would submit that the -- we request the Growth March 1, 2021 Page 188 Management Plan amendment be denied and also that the PUD application as proposed be denied. And if you are going to approve them, change the ordinance for the Growth Management Plan to reflect the 140, and on the PUD, place a specific restriction in there about not having one big building, 25-foot setbacks all the way around, 35-foot to the tower. And, again, I still think there's a fundamental flaw with regards to the -- I'll call it the sweet carrot of the DaRuMa parcel. I think it's more of a clove of garlic than a sweet carrot. And, half Italian, I can say that. No further comment and available for any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I wanted to let you know we do have Buzz Victor online now. We were able to get his connection. I don't know what order you up want to go in here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think right now we need a court reporter break. She's over her one-and-a-half hours, and I think we are in for the long haul. So I think at this point we'll adjourn and reconvene at 4 -- 5:15. (A brief recess was had from 4:58 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.) MR. MILLER: You have a live mic, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So I think we have Mr. Victor on the Zoom. MR. MILLER: Yes. I'll have our Zoom folks go ahead and send Mr. Victor the cue to unmute himself. Mr. Victor, you will be getting a note to unmute. If you'll please do that. There you are. Mr. Victor, do you hear me? MR. VICTOR: I do hear you. MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir. And I think, Chairman, you said 15 minutes? MR. VICTOR: My apologies to you all. I wasn't intending to March 1, 2021 Page 189 make this dramatic entrance, and I have kudos for both Troy and Oscar for helping me. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you, and I want to thank you in advance for what I know what will be your thoughtful consideration of all the facts regarding this application. I'm Buzz Victor. I'm a homeowner residing at 312 Lagoon Avenue, and I'm the President of Save Vanderbilt Beach, Inc., a Florida 501(c)4 Florida nonprofit that we established late 2019. I'll be referring to Save Vanderbilt Beach as SVB. I apologize for not being in person today. I would have liked that very much. But as a cancer survivor, I feel that there's an undue level of risk associated with being in a relatively small indoor space. As you know, we had lobbied for a potentially safer venue, but that was not to be. The mission of Vanderbilt Beach is to protect residents of the Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Park neighborhoods from unreasonable development and, in a more general sense, t o protect all of Collier County's residents who are users of Vanderbilt Beach itself by promoting continued and improving access. I'd like you to know a little bit more about Save Vanderbilt Beach, its volunteers, its membership, and its activities. First, I want to stress that all those who have given their time, their intellect, their encouragement and support to SVB have done so without remuneration of any kind. They have given countless hours to the project only because they love their neighborhood, their beach, and living in Collier County. Likewise, the 1,200 who have registered on the SVB website, about half of whom have contributed funds to our activities, do so for love of what they now have, a lovely human-scaled community. Let me emphasize what I just said. Nearly half of the members March 1, 2021 Page 190 of SVB are contributors. Let that sink in for a moment. Nothing can better express how passionate these people are in supporting the mission of the organization than the fact that they've reached into their own pocket to protect their neighborhood. They've provided more than $136,000 over the last 15 months. Those funds have been used to engage experts, create and maintain a professional website, to develop graphics that show without editorializing the impact of the development, to build the model you see in front of you, and to develop the marketing and promotion of our cause. This is remarkable. These residents have skin in the game. But in a fundamental way, it's also very sad. We're a group of citizens frightened about a serious threat to our lifestyle; that it should take funding on this level to be properly heard and represented before you is truly unfortunate. It's lamentable that we have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on advertising, print, radio, television, social media just to keep up with the developer's marketing efforts, but that's the reality of the system. And we have been heard. You have received many hundreds of emails and other communication from your constituents expressing opposition to this development. Many of those have been repetitive. I bear the responsibility for that, as I made one-click communications possible, but I do not apologize. Every one of those communications was sent by a person only trying to protect his or her environment. Each is asking only that you listen to your constituents and uphold existing comprehensive plan policies and Land Development Code rules regarding the permissible development. Is that really so much to ask? Recently, with the help of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, SVB designed and published a survey about which you'll hear details from Mark English, the president of PBPOA, in just a few minutes. I will tell you that some 3,300 county residents have responded to that survey; March 1, 2021 Page 191 a tremendous outpouring. Notwithstanding Mr. Stock and Mr. Yovanovich's comments about their perception about the misleading nature of the survey, this response is truly remarkable and, again, underscores the community's interest in this project. You have heard from Greg Stuart, our professional planner; from Bill Oliver, our traffic engineer; and from our attorneys about why this application has to be denied at the Growth Management Plan level. That denial makes moot the developer's request for road vacations. This, as you know, is surely a $4.3 million gift to the developer. It eliminates the zoning request, which still doesn't meet the height concerns initially expressed by staff. Look, while I don't have the technical expertise of our experts, I can tell you that I've been a real estate developer for over 40 years, and in this case, the developer's requests are all about money. Now, that's understandable. Stock Development is a business, and it's in business to make a profit, and they have every right to do so. They knowingly made a high-stakes gamble with eyes wide open when they acquired the 4.6 acres from the private parties that owned them. According to the Collier County Assessor's website, Stock paid in excess of $25 million for these properties. Stock closed on the acquisitions before he had any permission or certainty of receiving the necessary approvals to construct a profitable development that was at the time not permitted. In my 40-plus years of experience, I've often negotiated with landowners who are very proud of their properties and asking very high prices. I've regularly agreed to pay those high prices, but I made clear to them that the value of their land was contingent upon the use to which I was able to put it. To me, it had no value at all if I couldn't develop a profitable project. Because of that, I made my purchases contingent on my receiving fully non-appealable approvals to do with the property as I desired. March 1, 2021 Page 192 Stock Development made the calculated decision to take ownership of the land before it had those assurances, and that's why they're so insistent on developing a project that continues to be too tall, too close to several street right-of-ways, and too big for the site and the neighborhood. Let me state, this is a bed that Stock Development made for itself. Government has no obligation to and must not concern itself with the developer's economics. So where do we stand and what happens next? We are today and always have been realists. We are not against development of this corner; we are not, nor have we ever been, against Stock as a developer of this corner. What we've objected to is only his plan for the One Naples project. We hope that you will recognize that no matter the ultimate configuration, the Stock application is of no benefit to the public. It benefits only Stock Development. Stock's acquisition of the DaRuMa property and his willingness to maintain it as open space is encouraging to us, but we're disappointed that it remains exclusively for the private use of the owners of residences in One Naples. We would request assurances that his commitment is firm and an unalterable requirement of any approvals that he may obtain, but this doesn't change our concerns. We, and thousands of county residents from whom you have heard, continue to request that you deny the amendment to the Growth Management Plan. We will agree and are appreciative of the increase in setbacks on Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, yet I do not understand how the actual building height of the towers can have gone from 125 feet to the applicant's 165 feet. Nothing has changed to justify that change. As for the marina, Stock's original proposal has morphed from a totally private facility to a quasi-public one. At very least, we would March 1, 2021 Page 193 like any slip not counted in the four that Stock seeks for charter operators or those temporary facilities for fueling operations to be deed restricted such that its owner or renter in perpetuity must also be the owner of a One Naples residence. But if this development is approved, even with its new design, future developers with grandiose plans will be pointing to these structures in Vanderbilt Beach when they argue about their projects being compatible and complementary. You will inevitably soon see the Miami of Vanderbilt Beach. What a tragedy. After the public comments are complete, you and -- and you commence on your deliberations, all interaction will be between you, Stock, and his representatives. You'll be asked to make final decisions without benefit of further (audio malfunction). That would be unfair, especially since the public's had such a limited time to consider today's new development -- new developer presentations. When you assumed your posts, you entered into a covenant with your constituents to faithfully represent their interests. They are overwhelming asking you to protect them today by denying Stock's proposal. I implore you not to ignore the feelings of the community. At the very least, continue this application and allow your residents to be able to properly digest the newly delivered information. Finally, I'd like to tell you about the eulogy given by Senator Charles Sumner in 1865 at the funeral of President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy, Sumner said Lincoln was mistaken when, in the Gettysburg address he said, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here. Rather, Sumner remarked, the world noted at once what was said and will never cease to remember it. Now, I grant you, that's a bit of a stretch, because this development may only stand on this corner for a hundred years or so, but I do assure you that the citizens and voters of Collier County will March 1, 2021 Page 194 long remember what happens here today. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And I believe Mr. English, representing Pelican Bay property owners. MR. ENGLISH: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good afternoon, leadership of Collier County. Let me -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Please identify yourself, sir. MR. ENGLISH: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Mark English, and I represent, as President, the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. Let me start with something we can all agree on. The Dow Jones industrial averages are up 603 points. You may already know that, but that's a good one. I want to make one comment about traffic. A lot's been said. I'm trying not to be duplicating here. But the project as proposed is going to generate a lot of traffic from Amazon delivery, UPS, Federal Express, Door Dash, Uber, Lyft, just about everybody you can think of, plus all the supporting services, the air condition and heating people, the lawn service, the pool service, the people that take -- clean up the garage and all this sort of thing. And I don't know if they factored all that into their analysis of it, but I share that thought with you, because that's going to be an awful lot of people in that place. The Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, along with Save Vanderbilt Beach, have designed and published a survey of countywide attitudes about the Collier lifestyle. Questions on the survey range from attitudes about the quality of life and smart growth to thoughts about traffic and red tide. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with the One Naples project and their feelings about it. Let me present some of the detailed -- details of those who filled March 1, 2021 Page 195 out the survey. As of yesterday -- yesterday was Sunday, and we shut it off at 3,192 residents. Buzz commented that it was over 32- or 3,300 now. But those numbers, while proportionate, are not in these numbers that I'm going to read to you. These came from throughout the county but, understandably, the majority came from Commissioner Solis' District 2 where the project is located. Here are the specifics. Okay. Thirty-one hundred ninety-two total respondents to the survey; 416 were from District 1, which was 13 percent of the total; 2,170 were from District 2, which is 6.8 percent of the total; 210 were from District 3, representing 7 percent of the total; 251 were from District 4, representing 8 percent of the total; and 145 were from District 5, representing 4 percent of the total. Asked if smart growth is important to them, 79 percent strongly agreed and an additional 9 percent simply agreed, making the total 88 percent that smart growth was important. Asked if quality of life is important to them, 96 percent agreed. The vast majority of those strongly agreed at 91 percent. Asked if developers should be allowed to amend the growth management for their own benefit, 94 percent said no. 98 percent were familiar with One Naples. 1.6 percent stated that commissioners should approve the change for the GMP, 1.6 percent, and a whopping 92.3 stated that the commissioners should deny the amendment. That's 2,946 out of the 3,192 taxpaying residents throughout the county. I guess what's amazing to us is how 1.6 percent when the -- whether the vote is 92.6 to 1.6 -- 92.3 to 1.6, how does the 1.6 break the tie? And these are the people that elected you and supported you, and they're just asking you to follow their wishes. And there were thousands and thousands and thousands of letters and calls and emails that you were subject to asking you to please deny March 1, 2021 Page 196 this request. It's not who's right; it's what's right. It's not who's right; it's what's right. This is the wrong project at the wrong place at the wrong time. And, respectfully, we ask that you deny it. We thank you for all that you do. Watching you all here today and figuring you have many days like this, this is not an easy job, and we understand that, and we thank you for your service. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions, Mr. English. Thank you. All right. So, Commission, we are -- we have how many speakers, including the ones here in the room? MR. MILLER: Approximately 65. It's -- the registrants online tend to go up and down. Some leave the meeting, some join the meeting, but you cannot join unless you've preregistered. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So what is the will of the Commission? Should we maybe around, I guess it would be 6:30'ish, which would give -- Terri, that would give you your hour and a half working. We'll take a break, we'll eat, and then reconvene after that. And an hour -- does an hour work with everybody? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I make a suggestion? Just a thought that I think all of us can probably afford to miss a meal or eat dinner later when we get home. Let's get through the public hearing. That's just a thought. I don't know if anybody would agree with that, but -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I need to eat. I don't want to miss a meal. We could -- we could reduce that time, perhaps, to half an hour. We could ask us to order in for us so that we have it here, which would facilitate. March 1, 2021 Page 197 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro has a connection to pizza. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's already got -- he's already eaten, folks. He's been eating. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: One of the things -- it's not about the food. One of the things I want to just say is I hope nobody who's watching, either in the stands here or at home, thinks we're trying to just press through to rush through this. I look at it just the other way. We're doing this out of respect for, first of all, momentum. You know, we're in the thick of the details here while things are fresh. And I tend to think that, you know, if we called it quits right now, half the people -- that 65 would probably disappear, and they wouldn't be able to be online tomorrow. So, I mean, I think we're doing it because we're so dedicated to this project and, you know, we're not trying to make a -- you know, a 5:30 dinner reservation somewhere or we have somewhere else to be. So, you know, I don't know the thoughts of the crowd right now, but I know all of us are dedicated to pressing through with this, not to speed things up. But this is a very important decision for all of us, and we've got all the experts here now, all the people, and all the momentum going forward. So, you know, if anybody thinks it's otherwise and, you know, we're just trying to rush through something, nobody here's rushing through anything. And also, we haven't voted on anything. So, you know, to your word, sir, which I certainly really respect what you had to say at the podium, you know, we do hear constituents. We haven't voted on anything yet. So we haven't -- so, you know, we're here to listen and make sure everybody is heard, and that's why we're going to continue to press forward, because everybody's here. March 1, 2021 Page 198 So whatever the will is of the -- of our chairwoman, I think, you know, if we need 30 minutes, an hour, whatever, I've got -- I have a really good assistant, so I have pizza in my office, so I can eat -- and I'm former military, so I can eat dinner in five minutes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think what we'll do is break at 6:30 and, if you -- I'll bow to everyone here. Half an hour. We'll have food brought in so that we can eat. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we'll -- 6:30, so we'll come back. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going over to Rick's office right now. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Pizza's $3 a slice. I'm on a limited budget. So -- and, Terri, are we okay? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 6:30. Do we want to have a discussion about the public speakers? Do you want to allot the full three minutes or have a discussion -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, sir, I do. Yes, sir, I do. Three minutes. Everyone gets three minutes. They do not have to take three minutes, but you have a time frame, and at three minutes, we probably will say that we would like you to finish up. If you agree with the previous speaker, the one before you, if you feel so inclined, please give your name and perhaps not necessarily address but the area that you live in and say that you agree with it. We will find that a lot of the testimony, depending on if you are for it or against it, will be repetitive. But we are here to do your business. That's what we were elected to do. And this is your time to speak. So given that... MR. MILLER: All right, ma'am. We will start with all of our in-person speakers, as we have previously done. March 1, 2021 Page 199 Your first speaker is Peter Duggan. He will be followed by Ralph Cowie, and then Ken Melkus. I'd like to encourage our speakers to use both podiums so that the other podium can go cleaned in between. Mr. Cowie, if you're here, could you please queue up at the other podium. Thank you, sir. Mr. Duggan, you have three minutes, sir. MR. DUGGAN: Thank you. Peter Duggan. I live in Pelican Bay. I'm a full-time resident. I've lived down here for 11 years. I'm an ex-navy person. I spent my business career at Fortune 500 companies, Pepperskill (phonetic), Heinz, and Bordan (phonetic). I'm very proud of my environmental background. My father was the founding chairman, Steven Duggan, of Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, which, next to Sierra Club, has the best standing as an environmental. I bleed the environment like other people bleed their causes. I'm president of the Mangrove Action Group which is the only NRPA in Collier County, and you're worried about the coastal. The mangroves were the heros in Irma. Absolutely the heros. They saved what rooftops -- five neighbors, including myself, all lost their rooftops. So you have a great -- you have a great responsibility. I am failing in my mine, and I'll give you some examples why you're failing in yours. The environment. The water, the land, and the air are your responsibilities. You're spending 90 percent of your time and listening to all the consultants and all the lawyers and everything else, but the reason that most people are here is because the beaches, the water, the fishing -- I fish every other week in inland waterways. I hunt. I love the environment. And, believe it or not, hunters are great environmentalists because they only take what they plan to eat or use. March 1, 2021 Page 200 But, please, folks, do a better job than you're doing now because you are failing, like I am failing. A couple of statistics. We've lost 350 manatees. We're estimated to lose 2,150 manatees before the end of the year, which is about one-third the estimate of the total manatees we have. Now, the sea cows are wonderful creatures. They are starving to death because of seagrass loss. We don't know how much the red tide, algae blooms, and other things impact the manatees. But we're failing on that. I'm failing on that in representing my cause to you. We're failing on water quality. The lagoon was estimated by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida at, like a D -- no, it was a C minus in 2005. In 2017, the quality of the water in the lag oon that we're talking about was a D minus. And you folks have the responsibility like I do for the environment? That doesn't even get into water rise and global warming. That just gets into our local issues. So, please, take what you've heard today from these professionals and take it into consideration in a different light than you had coming in here, because no matter what you say, some of you have made up your mind. Some of you have great influences and pressure on you, but you're above those. So please take that into consideration. And, finally, open space. If we don't get the policies we want, we will change the policymakers. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Duggan. MR. DUGGAN: Including you, Andy. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ralph Cowie. He'll be followed by Ken Melkus and then Carolyn Jasul Ferrari. MR. COWIE: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Ralph Cowie. I live in Barefoot Pelican at 271 South Bay Drive. I've been an owner for 38 years. I'm enjoying myself in a wonderful March 1, 2021 Page 201 paradise. I'm also a Florida resident. Approximately, in early January, we had a vote on the people, 60 owners in Barefoot Pelican, about One Naples. There was more than a majority of 31 against. At that point we were over the majority, we stopped, but there were six in favor, okay. In February, we worked with Brian Stock on a memorandum of understanding. This was negotiated with Vanderbilt Holdings, which, again, is the developer of One Naples. A vote was taken again in early February on this MOU. The vote was 32 in favor and 27 opposed. However, this was not a vote on the approval of One Naples. This is a vote on the acceptance of over $540,000 from Vanderbilt Holdings for Stock Development, which was over $9,000 to each owner of the project as approved. I ask you to vote no. I think this project is wrong for Vanderbilt Beach. This development is not good for Vanderbilt Beach. And I have a problem with this development and the setback along South Bay Drive. Setback drive [sic], as mentioned today, is the only one that still stays at 10 feet. I would ask you to go to 25 feet. Barefoot Pelican is at 25 feet street side and water side, okay. The building that's being proposed, the two buildings on South Bay Drive, have a setback as proposed of 10-feet, however there's an overhang on the building of five feet. The 10-feet is at ground level or garage level, if you will, and then there's a five-foot hangover in the building. Now, I'm on the fourth floor of Barefoot Pelican, which is approximately 35 feet from the ground. I built a wall, which all of you received my memo on. I hope you'll remember it. We built a wall that was 20 feet in front of the building out of plywood, which was to illustrate that that wall is 87 feet tall. Not 70 feet as was proposed here, but 87 feet. I'm telling you that's just astronomical. March 1, 2021 Page 202 I'm sitting on the walkway enjoying myself, and I'm going to be enclosed with a shadow that's sticking out 20 feet and 87 feet high. The building also, by the way, was mentioned earlier being 25 feet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. MR. COWIE: Forty feet to my southwest is where the building is going to be. I'd ask you to vote no on this proposal. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ken Melkus. He'll be followed by Carolyn Jasul Ferrari, and then David Galloway. Mr. Melkus. MR. MELKUS: Thank you. Just in order to avoid duplication, I would just simply. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Come up to the -- MR. MELKUS: In order to avoid duplication, you've heard most of the commentary. I oppose the project and have been very active in my opposition and hope that, Commissioner Solis, you would listen to the constituents that you have that have voiced their opinion as to denying this project. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Melkus. MR. MILLER: All right. Carolyn Jasul Ferrari. Carolyn Ferrari? (No response.) MR. MILLER: David Galloway? I see Mr. Galloway approaching. Mr. Galloway will be followed by Kristin Harvey, and then Michael Moore. MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak today. Hi. My name is David Galloway. For almost 20 years I've lived at 91 -- excuse me -- 9051 Gulf Shore Drive, which is the Beachmoor condominiums, directly across from and less than 50 feet from the edge of the One Naples property. March 1, 2021 Page 203 I'm also the president of the almost 30-year-old Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association representing almost 6,000 doors in our defined geographic area. Over almost four years since the One Naples project was announced, the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association has had a very cordial relationship with Stock Development, having met numerous times in person, via telephone, and Zoom with Brian Stock and Keith Gelder. Our members have attended the various informational meetings regarding this project. The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association board of directors and membership thoroughly understand that the parcels of land in question will be developed at some time. We want it to be done in a responsible manner that can be supported by the area's thousands of residents. I personally believe that the Stock Development group is an excellent building company; however, I understand this project will be their first high-rise tower endeavor. We believe the project, as it is presented, is too tall and doesn't have the adequate setbacks proposed and needed to accommodate these buildings, amongst other items that are being presented by our legal counsel today. The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association were involved almost 20 years ago with the county working to change the Land Development Code, as some of you may remember. This became known as the Vanderbilt Beach Tourist Overlay, or the VBRTO, to address and prevent oversized buildings that are definitely out of scale, especially up and down Gulf Shore Drive. The answer is very concise: Just comply with the present Land Development Code without any variances. It's equally appropriate for both the developer and the residents that live in this area to preserve our neighborhood and not make a community along the gulf, like Miami is along their oceanfront. March 1, 2021 Page 204 The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association and I request you deny these applications as presented and to leave it as C-3 zoning or have the county purchase the property back from Stock Development and build a pristine park for all the Collier County residents to enjoy. Commissioners, please listen to your constituents, especially my friend, Commissioner Solis. This is your commission district, and we wish that you people would vote to deny these applications as presented. Thank you for your time at this late hour. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next registered speaker is Kristin Harvey. Michael Moore. Mr. Moore will be followed by Jacqualene Keay, and then -- I'm going to try to pronounce this name in hopes that this person will recognize it. I can't read it. It's Caeley Yolard, maybe, Stockbo. If that sounds like it's your name, please come see me in the boardroom. Mr. Moore, you have three minutes, sir. Please begin. MR. MOORE: Good evening. My name is Mick Moore, and I'm one of the owners of the Vanderbilt Beach Resort and the Turtle Club restaurant on Vanderbilt Beach. Our resort was the very first property built on Vanderbilt Beach Road in 1951, and my family has owned the resort since 1968. Over the last 50 years, the area has grown and changed, and we have heard on multiple occasions that the approval of a condominium project would be -- would mean the end of the world for Vanderbilt Beach. This has simply not been the case over the years, and the area continues to attract tourists and residents who love it. Our neighborhood has developed into a nice mix of condominiums, residential homes, two beachfront hotels, and a few smaller businesses. It's primarily residential tourist, which is what most of the zoning is except for this piece, which is zoned March 1, 2021 Page 205 commercial. I certainly understand why my fellow neighbors were upset when they first saw Stock's plan, because I have to admit when I first saw the plan I thought that the building was too high and the project was too intense, although I've always felt that the property should be used for a residential purpose rather than a commercial use. Fortunately, Stock Development has responded to the concerns of the residents and the concerns of the county, and I personally find the current plan of 10 stories over two stories of parking to be very compatible with the neighborhood, very complementary with the nearby buildings. I've been pleased and surprised at how they've made these reductions, and I think the current proposed project will fit in well and will be a fine addition to the neighborhood. The biggest and most drastic change that could occur to our area is if you were to deny this project, force the developer to develop commercial, and now you have a commercial project in what is otherwise a residential area. That would change Vanderbilt Beach forever in a negative way, in my opinion. In my view, a commercial project on this property would be much worse for the neighborhood because of the increased traffic and the increased noise, and it would be much less compatibl e with the area rather than what Stock has proposed, which I think is compatible. This property is going to change. It is going to be developed. I'm not willing to gamble the future of Vanderbilt Beach on the possibility that Stock won't do what they said and develop it commercial if this is not approved. So if you want to Save Vanderbilt Beach, I encourage you to approve this project, preserve the character of the neighborhood, which is residential, instead of turning this corner of our neighborhood into a commercial project. March 1, 2021 Page 206 Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jacqualene Keay. She will be followed by Justin Finch and then David Jeskie. (No response.) MR. MILLER: I'm told all of our speakers have moved down to this floor, so I'm guessing we've lost a few. Are you Mr. Finch? Okay. Mr. Finch will be followed by David Jeskie and then Brandon Seward. MR. FINCH: Hello, Board. My name is Captain Justin Finch. I have lived within one mile of the proposed project for the past 36 years. For the past 18 years, I've owned and operated South Bay Marina, which is located at the southern end of Vanderbilt Lagoon and is on the property of the proposed project. I have worked in various capacities at this location for a total of 28 years. As a business owner, I see great potential in the potential -- the proposed commercial option for this project; however, as a 36-year resident and property owner who plans to continue to live in the area well into retirement, I feel the residential option is by far the best fit for this community. On a personal note, I feel it's very important for me to address my experience working with Brian Stock and the character of all the staff at Stock Development. Shortly after the property changed hands, we were hit by Hurricane Irma. My building that I had been working out of since 2003 was damaged beyond repair. Thinking this was the end of my dream, which I had invested my life savings, was a sad and sobering event. Soon after, Brian and his team reached out to me -- reached out and made it possible that my staff and I could continue to operate in a limited capacity using our fishing guide services in order to continue March 1, 2021 Page 207 to provide for our families. This was such a blessing in a bleak time. As we started to repair our homes and our lifestyle, we were hit with yet another roadblock as devastating red tide outbreak plagued much of our 2019 season. The unsolicited consideration of Brian and the team helped pull us through yet again, as they assured me they wouldn't give up on us through this challenge. Next comes 2020. With the peak of my business -- my busy season being February, March, and April, the impact of COVID proved to rival the impacts of Hurricane Irma. Without anyone singing their praises or claim from social media, once again, Brian, Keith, and the family at Stock made every effort to ensure that a small local business continued to stay afloat. Not based on us being the highest bidder or having the shiniest boats, but because we were locals who have our blood, sweat, and tears in this property. So when I hear anyone negatively question Stock Development's character or commitment to doing what is best for your community, with nothing but gratitude in my heart, I will strongly disagree. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Jeskie, followed by Brandon Seward, and then he will be followed by Judy Dugan. Mr. Jeskie, you have three minutes. MR. JESKIE: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is David Jeskie. I currently own and operate the Beach Store of Naples at 155 Vanderbilt Beach Road. I've currently been at the facility for a little over 11 years. During that 11 years, the corner property has been for sale through various owners. I was familiar with the previous owners. When they did go forward to sell it, they did go through and vet a number of developers, but Stock Development came out on top. And the one reason I was told that they did agree to sell to Stock Development March 1, 2021 Page 208 was because they were sure that the project would get built and get built the proper way to fit into the community. Stock Development has been very upfront with all the organizations in the area. In fact, I think -- believe they went above and beyond anything by having hundreds of meetings with all the associations trying to get a consensus on what would really work in the area. I could say that's probably more than any other developer in Collier County has done. In addition, they have the financial backing and right-of-way to do a first-hand quality project. Unfortunately, I'm at my business quite a bit, a lot more than I'd like to be. And, you know, one big issue that constantly comes up is the traffic. In my humble opinion, the traffic will actually be decreased. Right now, as residents come down -- it's not even residents. It's a lot of Miami people and West Coast people that come to Vanderbilt Beach. They're parking everywhere, in the open fields and every little nook and cranny that they can. It's an unmanageable situation. By eliminating a lot of the offsite parking, we'll also eliminate the number of people on Vanderbilt Beach. By having a well-coordinated community on that block will only enhance Vanderbilt Beach. I strongly suggest that you do approve the project, and I think Stock Development would be great for the area, unlike a lot of the other developers that have fallen by the wayside, specifically in the City of Naples. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brandon Seward. He will be followed by Judy Dugan, and then we will move to our online speakers with AJ Attavar. Mr. Seward, you have three minutes. MR. SEWARD: Thank you. March 1, 2021 Page 209 My name is Brandon Seward, and until about a month ago, I lived in Mercato above, like, Rocco's Tacos. And you can ima gine living in Mercato for a 20-something is pretty attractive. But from my experience living around bars and restaurants, it wasn't what I thought it was and it's, ultimately, the reason that I left, the bars and the restaurants. I can say firsthand that living around all these definitely detracts from the living experience and frustrated me to the point of moving away down to Island Walk; however, I do do frequent stay -- weekend stays at the Ritz-Carlton and, from my experience, looking out over the balcony, seeing high-rises to the south and one more residential building to the north doesn't detract from the experience in any way, but residential only. The building originally proposed fits the aesthetic and would blend in perfectly. From my years of commercial real estate ownership experience -- my business partner and I own $20 million worth of commercial office space -- I've learned that you want to reward the residents, not punish them. A commercial development in the form of shops, restaurants, and residences rewards visitors and punishes residents that have made Vanderbilt Beach their home. On a personal level, taking away DaRuMa's, a Naples icon since I was an infant, is heartbreaking. Shame on you. This is not Miami Beach. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Judy Dugan. She'll be followed by AJ Attavar and then Bev Cohen. Ms. Dugan, I hope I'm saying your name correct. MS. DUGAN: Yes, you are. Thank you, Commissioners. It's a great honor to talk in fr ont of you. And my name is Judy Dugan, and I'm in favor of the One Naples project by Stock Development. My family and I own and operate the Lighthouse Restaurant and March 1, 2021 Page 210 Buzz's Lighthouse -- the Lighthouse Inn and Buzz's Lighthouse Restaurant for the past over four decades. My husband -- I'm going to get a little personal. My husband, Buzz, and I came to Naples on our honeymoon in 1973, a long time ago. And we fell in love with Naples because it was very quaint, the beaches, the palm trees. There was a movie theater on Third Street and Broad, and Wynn's supermarket on Fifth Avenue. There was also the train down Goodlette Road, the west side, and the conductor used to wave at everybody and toot his whistle and everything. There was also the 15-cent hamburger joint on 41 and also the drive-through -- car drive-through with the carhops -- the pretty carhops on 41. Since that time, Naples has grown, and people have accepted the change, and Naples has grown into a beautiful, high -end resort city. And people -- it's very, very well known. And so Buzz and I, we fell in love with Naples, and we got a two-bedroom, one-bath condo in Vanderbilt Beach on Willet Avenue for $250 a month. That's right, $250. And we loved being on the water. Buzz went into real estate, and he bought and sold lots, residential lots in Vanderbilt Beach, buying them at that time for 6- to $10,000 and selling them. We also bought commercial lots in the commercial area that Stock is planning to build on. And we had owned, with a group, the property where Regatta is today, and also we also owned -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You have 30 seconds, ma'am. MS. DUGAN: Okay. And so, anyways, we bought the Lighthouse Inn in 1978, and we built Buzz's Lighthouse Restaurant in 1980. My sons and I, we still operate both of the businesses, and we've served many dinners and lunches to very -- how many Naples residents. March 1, 2021 Page 211 Anyways, just one more couple sentences, please. Vanderbilt Beach is an upscale residential area, not commercial. It's a residential; Vanderbilt Beach. One Naples project by Stock Development is also a residential upscale development. And I feel that they will both complement each other if given the chance. They really will. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. MS. DUGAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER: As we move to our online speakers, I want to remind them you will be prompted when to unmute. When it is your time to speak, please do that and then begin. AJ Attavar has dropped off, so we'll go with Bev Cohen, followed by Bob Giannetti, and then Bonnie Michaels. Ms. Cohen, you'll have to unmute yourself, but we're ready for your comment. MS. COHEN: Hi. Thank you. My name is Beth Cohen, obviously, and I've lived in Pelican Bay for over 30 years. And I initially was questioning the traffic studies. And in Pelican Bay, Pelican Bay Boulevard has always been used, more recently lately, as a cut-through. And the roadway is four lanes, two southbound, two northbound, but two of those lanes, both southbound and northbound, are cyclist lanes. And so, consequently, there's a lot of cyclists going through Pelican Bay during the day, and so it really essentially renders the roadway to two lanes, one north, one south. And it's difficult to exit onto Pelican Bay Boulevard from our neighboring communities during the day because of the heavy traffic. There are various locations going across Pelican Bay Boulevard where you can have access to the beach, and people are crossing the roadway at various points during the day and then later at night when March 1, 2021 Page 212 they're coming back from the beach or back from some of the restaurants in Pelican Bay. And I didn't know whether a traffic study had been done with regard to the two lanes which really Pelican Bay Boulevard has become. And traffic from One Naples can either avoid the traffic lights on Vanderbilt Beach Road and 41 by entering Pelican Bay Boulevard from North Point Drive and Hammock Oak Drive. So I didn't know if a traffic study had been done within our area of Pelican Bay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's my understanding that it has not been done regarding this -- this particular development. MS. COHEN: Because it's already sometimes a dangerous situation. I mean, I've seen a couple of accidents. I've seen a car-and-bike accident. So I think it might be a consideration. And thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Giannetti. He will be followed by Bonnie Michaels, and then Carl Djusberg. I hope I'm pronouncing that, sir. I think the D is silent. Mr. Giannetti, you will need to unmute yourself. Mr. Giannetti, you need to unmute yourself. We're going to be one second longer for patience here. Mr. Giannetti, if you can hear me, please unmute yourself. (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. Let's try to move on to Bonnie Michaels. Ms. Michaels, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. If you'll do so, please. All right. Ms. Michaels. MS. MICHAELS: Yes, I'm here. Bonnie Michaels. I live on Beachwalk, on Vanderbilt Beach Road. And not too much has been discussed about our issues regarding traffic, because we cannot turn left. March 1, 2021 Page 213 The main points that I have are quality of life. I've lived here for 20 years, and if I knew that a Miami tower was going to be down the street, I would never have bought. You know, the human element is really important here. We knew there was going to be development, but we'd hoped that there would be something in moderation and something for our neighborhood. We really would prefer having a combination of mid high-rise, some commercial. Some commercial is not bad at all. A few restaurants, a little boutique sounds good to me, better than massive, massive concrete. Commercial has been discouraged completely by Stock. There were never any options at all. And we keep talking about it's compatible. It's not compatible. I'm the person that walks down the street on Vanderbilt Beach Road, and there will be this massive two towers, dense building. That is not compatible at all. Lush landscaping doesn't change the massive 165-foot tower. I think lush was probably mentioned about 10 times today by the developer. So we're asking that you consider options. Do not approve of this plan. And nobody has really talked about the effects of the beach. Has Parks and Recreation at all been involved? Coastal Management? Vanderbilt Beach is already a failing beach. I can't imagine what it's going to be like when we have 172 condo people plus their friends plus their grandchildren. It's like Pony Island right now. Quality of life is really important to so many of us. One Naples doesn't improve it. It detracts. There is nothing for us in that development. Please do not approve this, and give us some options; reduce the height, the density, or give us a combination of commercial and mid-rise. Thank you. March 1, 2021 Page 214 MR. MILLER: Your next online speaker is Carl Djusberg, followed by Carolyn Baxter, and then Colin Kanar. Carl, I hope I'm pronouncing your last name correctly. You're being prompted to unmute, sir. If you'll do that now. Carl? MR. DJUSBERG: Hello? MR. MILLER: Oh, there you are, sir. You have three minutes. MR. DJUSBERG: Okay. I actually was just watching. I didn't want to speak, so I don't know how that happened. I apologize. MR. MILLER: All right, sir. Then we will move on. Thank you very much. Your next public speaker is Carolyn Baxter, followed by Colin Kanar, and then Craig Chandler. Ms Baxter, you're being prompted to unmute. Ms. Baxter, you should be prompted to unmute now, if you can do that for me. I'll pause one second longer, Madam Chair. (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. Let's move on to Colin Kanar, if I'm saying that right. It's K-a-n-a-r. You should be prompted to unmute yourself now, Colin. You have three minutes, sir. MR. KANAR: Okay. Hi. MR. MILLER: You'll need to mute whatever other TV you have going in your room there, sir. MR. KANAR: Okay. Let me move away here. Yeah. You know, I just wanted to say, I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach. We've lived here for over 20 years. I live actually directly across the bay from this project. I have written to all the commissioners. I am against this project. My entire family's against it as it stands right now for all the reasons that have been outlined here by the various entities. March 1, 2021 Page 215 I realize there are a few people who have presented today who all seem to have a financial interest for their business positively reflecting on this project, but aside from that, almost everyone who's called in is opposed to it. We've expressed that very distinctly to all the commissioners. I hope you'll make a wise decision and represent us. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Craig Chandler. He'll be followed by Dailey McPeak, and then Edwin Eckert. Mr. Chandler -- oh, you're there. You have three minutes, sir. MR. CHANDLER: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you. Just real quick. I'm one of the thousands and thousands of people that are speaking up and have spoken out that we're not for the current Stock Development. We -- we all knew it was C-3 when we bought in. I knew that five years ago. I'm a resident. I'm here in Naples Park. Homeowner, six registered voters, District 2. And, no, we figured that when something would go in it would be like Bayfront, Venetian Village, a mini Mercato, and that can sti ll happen. That will be amazing. Is that area commercial? Well, the Ritz-Carlton thinks so. They've got 450 units there. LaPlaya, Turtle Club, Vanderbilt Beach, and Buzz's Lighthouse. There's like four hotels, probably about 600 rooms, maybe more, total. Very commercial area. We can definitely handle the restaurants. In my opinion, this vote is simplified. Simply you're voting, should it be public use for everyone in the county plus our guests, or is it private and we shut the doors? Either way, I'm going there. I'm one of those 400 people that are crossing the street every day, right, and because I have a casual lifestyle here, I go down to the beach a March 1, 2021 Page 216 couple times a day. Yeah, I mean, if you want to put a condo with 400 people crossing in front of it, that would be -- that's going to be interesting. I wouldn't enjoy that. I would never move into something like that. But if you give it commercial possibilities, if it stays C -3, well, you get more parking, which I know you're looking at, at Seagate. So not only do you have your current parking lot, you'll get more public parking, you'll have more customers, you'll have more options for the guests and, quite frankly, I'm dreaming about having blueberry pancakes overlooking the bay. I think we can all agree on blueberry pancakes. And that's it. My vote: No, thank you. Keep it C -3. And thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dailey McPeak. He'll be followed be Edwin Eckert and then Elizabeth Pircio. So, Mr. McPeak, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. And there you are. You have three minutes, sir. MR. McPEAK: Hi, I'm Dailey McPeak. MR. MILLER: Sir, we're having a real difficulty hearing you. I see you're unmuted, but we still can't hear you. MR. McPEAK: I'm sorry. Better now? MR. MILLER: There you go, sir. You have three minutes. MR. McPEAK: I'm Dailey McPeak. I live on Gulf Shore Drive. I live a couple blocks from the proposed project. I would invite you commissioners to sit back, take a deep breath, imagine that you're -- you are coming from another state, and you want to get the global picture, the bird's eye view of what is best for our area and its community. If you do that and think of yourselves as the physician who's trying to do what's best for the patient -- you, the commissioners, are the physician, the people of the community are the patient, and the physician is motivated to do what's best for March 1, 2021 Page 217 the patient. If you, with that global perspective, consider making this five or so acres into a relaxing park very much like Connor Park up on Bluebill/Immokalee, that would help lower the stress level, the tension level of all the congestion of vehicles and bikers and walkers and people pushing carriages and carrying equipment to the beach. So in terms of what is best for the community, please consider that approach, and please deny approval of One Naples. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Edwin Eckert. He'll be followed by Elizabeth Pircio and George Marks. Mr. Eckert, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. Mr. Eckert, one more time, if you wish to speak, you will need to unmute yourself now. (No response.) MR. MILLER: And let's move on. We will try Elizabeth Pircio, followed by George Marks, and then Ilona Schmitt. Ms. Pircio, you are -- I hope I'm saying your name correctly. You are being prompted to unmute yourself. Will you do so now, please. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, Ms. Pircio, one more chance. Can you please unmute yourself. It's your turn to talk. There you are. Three minutes, ma'am. MS. PIRCIO: Hi, can you hear me -- oh, excuse me. I have -- can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am, we hear you. You have three minutes. MS. PIRCIO: Hello. MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am, we hear you. You have three minutes. MS. PIRCIO: I'm not sure that you can hear me. March 1, 2021 Page 218 MR. MILLER: We can hear you. MS. PIRCIO: Excuse me. Can you hear me now? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. We can hear you. MS. PIRCIO: I'm sorry. I had my computer on and my laptop, and it was very difficult. I was going to say good afternoon, but I guess it's good evening. My name is Elizabeth Pircio. I own a condo at Barefoot Pelican. I'm a direct abutter to One Naples. I'm also on the board of Save Vanderbilt Beach. I'm a practicing CPA and form erly served as member and chairperson of my planning board in Massachusetts. Barefoot Pelican was offered $576,000 worth of incentives to endorse One Naples. There's 60 units. Through a lot of pressure put on by the Board, they got 32 owners to endorse One Naples. It was very distressing to see this type of machination go on. I'm mentioning this because it's not a runaway endorsement by any stretch of the imagination, and there's still people at Barefoot Pelican that are violently opposed to this development. I hope that you will disapprove the Growth Management Plan amendment. This development is very, very bad for the residents who live in the Vanderbilt Beach area. The people that have spoke in favor of it are businesspeople, the Beach Box, owner of the marina, Buzz's Lighthouse, the Turtle Club. These people are going to -- they have a financial interest in this passing. But the people that vote, us, the people that live there, we don't want it. It doesn't fit. I hope that you deny the Growth Management Plan, but if you decide not to, there are two main issues to me on why it doesn't fit. One is the height of the high-rises. Every high-rise around it, including the Ritz and including Beachmoor, is under 12 stories, so under 125 feet. If you're going to approve it, you should limit the height to 125 feet of both of the towers. March 1, 2021 Page 219 The other issue that I have is setbacks. Every single building on South Bay Drive is set back 25 feet from the road and 25 feet from the water. Why should they get an exception? All of the setbacks should be at least 25 feet to be in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. I don't know what else to say. I've been fighting this since 2017. I know your planning staff very well because we've had many, many meetings with them. Commissioner Solis, you're the commissioner in our district. I would hope that you would listen to the residents. The residents don't want this. The voters don't want this. The businesspeople, of course they want it. But I hope that you listen to the residents. We're the people that vote you in. You have our quality of life in your hands with this vote. And I hope that you are listening. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Marks. He'll be followed by Ilona Schmitt and then Jacqualene Keay. Mr. Marks, I see you're there. You have three minutes, sir. MR. MARKS: Thank you very much, Commissioners. My name is George Marks. I am a resident of Vanderbilt Beach. I live at 319 Lagoon Avenue. You've heard today from Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Stock, how they have continued -- they have mentioned how they have continually worked with the community. If that was a genuine statement and genuinely true, Save Vanderbilt Beach would not have had to raise over $135,000, and who knows how much more will be required if the commissioners decide to approve the growth management amendment. As late as today's lunch break, Mr. Yovanovich was contacted by a representative of Save Vanderbilt Beach to reach a compromise that would have ended this hearing and avoided what could be years March 1, 2021 Page 220 of potential litigation for all. We'd all like to avoid that. Mr. Yovanovich's answer was no, and he was not interested in discussing further. We thought we were close. Please listen to the 3,300 residents that have responded to the survey and deny the Growth Management Plan amendment. As commissioners, you know how difficult it is to get 3,300 people to respond to a survey. So, clearly, your constituents believe that this Growth Management Plan amendment should be denied. Mr. Stock can always come back and resubmit a plan that works for all. I don't think we're that far apart but approving it today would not allow for that to happen. Please do the right thing and deny the Growth Management Plan amendment. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ilona Schmitt, followed by Jacqualene Keay, and then John Bamberger. Ms. Schmitt, I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. You have three minutes, ma'am. MS. SCHMITT: Perfectly. Thank you. My name is Ilona Schmitt. I'm a resident of District 4, and rather than repeat all of these wise people that have come forward today, I'd just like to say that -- please listen to your constituents and vote no on this measure. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jacqualene Keay. She'll be followed by John Bamberger, and then John Nick. Ms. Keay, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this time. There you are. MS. KEAY: Okay. Wonderful. Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. You have three minutes. MS. KEAY: Okay. Thank you. If I understand correctly, one of the greatest crises facing our March 1, 2021 Page 221 community is the exodus of those in lower-income and middle-class brackets because many of us cannot afford attainable housing. This issue is critical if we wish to sustain our community for future generations. I spoke to someone recently, and he said the reason he thinks attainable housing is less of a priority is because he believes there's a lack of political will. I can see there is a financial and political will for development such as One Naples, which caters to the needs of the wealthy. The prosperity of Naples will not be sustainable without the working class who are the backbone of this community. What happens when the working class are pushed out and do not return because of lack of attainable housing? Who will provide those essential services? Where does that leave the wealthy? If it is not conceivable that they will be the next -- is it not conceivable that they will be next in line for a great exodus? Like every boom in history, there is a bust. If Naples is busting at the seams with the wealthy, there will be no to little room for the working class who are needed to sustain our economy. So developments like One Naples does not address the housing crisis nor is it a solution to the retention of the working class. Economic development must address equity in relations to race and socioeconomic status of all community members. The results of major development catering to the needs of the wealthy will be detrimental to the community in the long run. Even if one argues that such developments bring in jobs to the community, it does not provide needed housing to those who require it most. I oppose this project because it will further widen the wealth gap and does not provide any attainable housing. I sincerely hope that leaders will put in as much will and effort into making attainable housing a reality for the working as they do for building yet another luxury development that only serves the wealthy. March 1, 2021 Page 222 Thank you all very much, and I appreciate your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Bamberger. He'll be followed by John Nick and then Jon McGaunn. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to at -- MR. BAMBERGER: My name is John Bamberger, and I am a full-time resident of Collier County, and I reside at the Regatta. My concern today is the street setbacks to the actual building height that Stock is requesting. The current 3C [sic] zoning requires an actual building height to front street setback of 50 percent with a minimum of 25 feet. So in other words, a 100-foot actual height building would require a 50-foot setback. Street setbacks and the actual building height go hand in hand. When done correctly, they provide open views, green space, sunlight and, most importantly, a sense of security. This is w hy we have zoning codes written to complement and enhance any neighborhood. And our Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood is a very good example of how it can be done correctly. Provided in one of the previous presentations, the average height -- actual height in the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood was 80.5 feet. The average setback was 49 feet, which is a 60 percent ratio, far exceeding the current C-3 regulations. Stock's now 165-foot towers is asking for just a 21 percent setback ratio, and the 87-foot Bayfront mid-rises are requesting less than 12 percent. Stock mentioned my community, Regatta, several times today. I live in Regatta, Building 1, which is 148 feet, which is the closest to the One Naples development. Our building is set back 150 feet from Vanderbilt Beach Road. You can barely see it driving down the street. The rear of our building was also designed at an angle to allow greater setback and more compatible with Barefoot Pelican. We do March 1, 2021 Page 223 not block their view. On a related subject, I would like to have clarification on the actual building heights that are being requested by Stock. I'd like to see if they'd include the rooftop amenities, such as the cabanas, the elevator access, and trees that are on their 87-foot mid-rise buildings that are shown in all their renderings. If they aren't, then these buildings would be even taller. From what I've been able to determine, talking to James Sabo and others in the Planning Commission, there is no other commercial or, excuse me, residential project in all of Collier County that has setback ratios as small as they're requesting. There are garage spaces, not residential. If this was allowed to go, this would create a precedence for a Miami-like setting in all of Collier County. I do appreciate your time today. I just want to save my neighborhood. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think now we're going to take a break, and we'll reconvene at 7:00. (A brief recess was had from 6:28 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I think we'll resume our public hearing. And, again, just to remind those who have been patiently waiting, that you do have three minutes to speak, and we want to hear from you. But if you agree with the previous speaker, if you just give us your name and maybe a district where you live and say that you agree, we'd appreciate that also. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: All right. I'm sorry. I've got a little confusion here. I believe John Bamberger is next, and then John Nick, and then Jon McGaunn. I could be wrong on Mr. Bamberger. He might have spoke right before we went to break. Mr. Bamberger, you're being queued to unmute yourself. March 1, 2021 Page 224 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He already spoke. MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Let's move on to John Nick and then Jon McGaunn and then Joseph Taormino. Mr. Nick, are you with us, sir? You'll need to unmute yourself. John Nick, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, sir. (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. He's not there. Mr. McGaunn has left us. So let's move to Joseph Taormino, Julie Wyman, and then Kathleen Curatolo. Joseph Taormino. Sir, are you with us? You'll need to unmute yourself. Mr. Taormino, T-a-o-r-m-i-n-o. Taormino. There you are, sir, Mr. -- Joseph, you have three minutes, sir. Sir? Can you hear us? Well, I see him unmuted, but -- MR. TAORMINO: Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. We can hear you. Speak up, please. You have three minutes. MR. TAORMINO: Thank you. My name's Joseph Taormino, and I own three properties in Naples Park. And basically, I'm concerned with the rest of the Collier County community. When they try to get down to the beach and they live west or east of 951 or thereabouts, trying to get to the beach is a real tough job for these people, and I think those people have the right to use our beaches as well as those of us who are close to the beach. And I think the inequity of that represents a problem for our state of caring for other people and for those who have less than we do. So I can think that basically by having these high-rises cater to the, you know, quite wealthy people is okay, but at the expense of those people who live east of us who don't have those means. And I am concerned that they will be limited to beach access. And if anyone's noticed, the beach is not wide at all. March 1, 2021 Page 225 So I thank you for your attention, and I wish you and yours the best. Thanks, and have a good evening. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Julie Wyman, followed by Kathleen Robbins and then Kathleen Sheran. Ms. Wyman, I see you're there. You have three minutes, ma'am. Please begin. MS. WYMAN: Good evening, Madam Chair. Can you all hear me? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. MS. WYMAN: Thank you. My name is Julie Wyman and I am a resident of Pelican Bay. I agree with my neighbors to deny One Naples as presented today. I do want to mention one additional concern I have, but I am hopeful Collier County will not continue past Vanderbilt Lagoon development mistakes, whether residential or commercial. I refer to the destruction of mangrove shorelines from these old developments which are destroying the natural filtering systems to handle the polluted land runoff into the lagoon waterway. Bigger waterfront developments like One Naples with zero -foot setbacks from the water will bring continued loss of water plant habitat for shore and seabirds and marine wildlife. Going forward, when we have the opportunity, let's keep our lagoons and bays public and accessible for the enjoyment of all our county residents, even the less wealthy, to enjoy perhaps with a Vanderbilt Lagoon waterfront restaurant rather than a condo overhanging the lagoon. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Robbins. She'll be followed by Kathleen Sheran and then Kevin Dugan. Ms. Robbins, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this March 1, 2021 Page 226 time. MS. ROBBINS: Good evening. MR. MILLER: Good evening. MS. ROBBINS: My name is Kathleen Robbins, and I live on Gulf Shore Drive in Vanderbilt Beach. I am the treasurer of the Save Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. Our organization, as you've heard, is opposed to your approval of the One Naples project as proposed. Even the revised proposal -- which my head is still spinning. I don't know how you guys can consider it just having received it this morning. Our reasons for our group asking you to deny the One Naples project are many of the same of those who have already spoken. But I will emphasize that we find most objectionable the dangerous precedent it will set in our neighborhood. Vanderbilt Beach was developed in the '60s and '70s, and our neighborhood along Gulf Shore Drive is primarily a low- to mid-rise neighborhood with a number of single-family homes as well. In the early 2000s, as you have heard, the precursors to our organization sponsored a change to the Land Development Code, which is known by the name the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay. This effort was working with county staff. We spent over $50,000 and over two years working with their staff. There was also a two-year moratorium that allowed us time to suspend building and talk to staff about getting this implemented. The approval of the One Naples project as proposed, however, will open the floodgates allowing other developers to buy up the older properties along Gulf Shore Drive, which are now 40, 45, 50 years old, and perhaps Vanderbilt Drive as well, and ask for approval for high-rises similar to One Naples, using One Naples as a precedent. This will have the effect of destroying our Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay and, as a byproduct, our March 1, 2021 Page 227 neighborhood. Please vote to deny all three applications. Thank you for your time and attention. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Kathleen Sheran followed by Kevin Dugan and then Kim Jacob. Ms. Sheran, you are being prompted to unmute yourself. There you are. You have three minutes, ma'am. MS. SHERAN: Thank you. I appreciate all of the time you're putting into this. I've been listening, and I support the opposition. I have nothing to add to what's already been said. MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am. Your next speaker is Kevin Dugan, followed by Kim Jacob, and then Laura Donovan. Mr. Dugan, you have three minutes, sir. Please begin. MR. DUGAN: Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Kevin Dugan. My family and I own and operate Buzz's Lighthouse and also the Lighthouse Inn for the past 40-plus years. I fully understand the controversy surrounding this development. And it does not matter what is proposed here; all will be met with opposition. My family and I are in support of this One Naples development and believe that Stock, being a local company committed to Naples over the years, is the right developer. I am born and raised in Naples and Vanderbilt Beach. Some of my best memories were growing up here in Vanderbilt Beach. Times sure have changed. If we could only have stopped development back in the '80s. Unfortunately, that is not an option and was not an option. I also believe Collier County has done an excellent job managing the explosive growth over the years. The fact that March 1, 2021 Page 228 Vanderbilt Beach is mostly residential has been a major draw for property owners. We don't want this area to turn into a South Beach or Las Olas Strip, and that is exactly what commercial the other option would do. Residential is here. Some people are thinking and hoping Stock will not develop commercial. That is a huge gamble for you, our Collier County Commissioners, to take. The problems commercial development will cause from increased traffic and noise will ruin the fabric of Vanderbilt Beach. Now, there is a beautiful master planned development that is sure to benefit this area. Once again, I believe in One Naples and Stock Development as the best fit for this neighborhood. Thank you, Commissioners, for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kim Jacob. She'll be followed by Laura Donovan and then Linda Roth. Ms. Jacob, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this time. Kim Jacob. You should be getting a prompt to unmute yourself, Ms. Jacob. (No response.) MR. MILLER: And let's move. Your next speaker is Laura Donovan, and she will be followed by Linda Roth and then Linda Torni. Ms. Donovan, you should be getting a prompt to unmute yourself at this point. Laura Donovan. Ms. Donovan, you should -- need to unmute yourself at this time, please, if you wish to speak. (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. I'm hitting a losing streak here. Let's try Linda Roth followed by Linda Torni. Ms. Roth, you should be getting a prompt to unmute yourself at March 1, 2021 Page 229 this time. Linda Roth. Ms. Roth, you have unmuted. You'll need to make sure everything else in your house is unmuted -- your TV -- or is muted, so forth. MS. ROTH: Hello. Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, Ms. Roth. You have three minutes. Please begin. MS. ROTH: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Linda Roth. I'm a resident of Pelican Bay. I agree with all the reasons presented by previous speakers opposing the One Naples application. As you are aware, there are great concerns among residents and visitors about water quality and algal outbreaks in Collier County's water bodies. Vanderbilt Lagoon is located at the southernmost end of Wiggins Pass Estuary approximately three-and-a-half to four miles of Wiggins Pass inlet. Consequently, it has very little circulation and flushing. As expected, this water is consistently declining. And, in fact, it receives a D minus grade in the Conservancy's 2017 estuaries report card. Having 75-plus boat slips in the marina and a fueling station at the southern border of Vanderbilt Lagoon will not only significantly increase boating traffic in the Wiggins Pass Estuary, also the amount of oil, gas, detergent, paint, heavy metals in the lagoon, thus accelerating degradation of the already impaired water, leading to algal blooms and fish kills in the Wiggins Pass ecosystem. I urge commissioners to deny the One Naples application as presented by Stock today. I believe Stock (audio malfunction) revise its plan to make it better for our neighborhood. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Linda Torni, followed by Kathleen Curatolo, and then Marsha -- Maria Tsakos. March 1, 2021 Page 230 Excuse me. Ms. Torni, I see you there, ma'am. You have three minutes. Please begin. MS. TORNI: Yes. I'm opposed to the building of Naples One. The reason why I'm opposed I'm at Barefoot Pelican. My light, my air, my view will be destroyed. What sells my condo is the view. You take away the view, you take away the value of my condo. My great grandchildren love the beach. This year when they were down there, they were elbow to elbow with people even during COVID. You're adding that many more people in the area, and the beach won't be able to be enjoyed anymore. I just don't understand where Stock comes out with -- well, there's people who won't be using the beach. Well, why is he building that close to the beach, and why is he offering a shadow to Wiggins Pass? It just doesn't make sense to me. The whole area -- it just doesn't make sense. We don't need a cement city. I'm completely opposed to it. I think what we have there now, it looks terrible, but that is also Stock's problem. He let the building sit and rot and then he tore them down and didn't even maintain the grounds around where they tore down. That's all I have to say. He's responsible for the blight. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Curatolo, followed by Maria Tsakos, and then Matthew Seely. Ms. Curatolo, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this time. Ms. Curatolo, I think that's a Star 6 if you're on the phone. There you go. You have three minutes, ma'am. Ms. Curatolo? Kathleen Curatolo. (No response.) MR. MILLER: I think -- I see her unmuted again. Let me try March 1, 2021 Page 231 one more time. Ms. Curatolo, are you there, ma'am? (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. I don't have her. Let's move on. Maria Tsakos followed by Matthew Seeley. Maria, you should be getting a prompt right about now to unmute yourself. Will you please do so, Maria Tsakos. Maria T-s-a-k-o-s, Tsakos. That's how I'm pronouncing that. If you're there, please unmute yourself. (No response.) MR. MILLER: We'll move on. Matthew Seely followed by Maureen Gambocurta. Mr. Matthew Seely, you should be getting a prompt to unmute yourself. If you'll do so at this time, you have three minutes, sir. MR. SEELY: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. For starters, I'd like to thank you for your diligence today and your professionalism along with your staff. I've been following this project from the very start, and I've watched the emotional level of rhetoric that's gone on in the community basically caused by Save Vanderbilt Beach and, truthfully, none of the arguments that they pose really have anything to do with what's best for our community. I happen to own two condominiums at the Barefoot Pelican. I've been asked by 30 other owners to represent them tonight, that's 50 percent of the owners at the Barefoot Pelican. And I find it reprehensible that there are other members of our association that have come here tonight and tried to represent that somehow our receiving $575,000 from Stock Development was done as their making some type of a proposal to us. We requested it. We negotiated with them. We came to the table and said, if you would like the support of our association, what can you do for us. Stock never once approached us and tried to make some kind of lucrative March 1, 2021 Page 232 offer in lieu of our support. So for these same people that bellied up to the table to take $9,000 per uni t are now here criticizing Stock is reprehensible. I've owned in this community for many years. And the walk from the Barefoot Pelican to the beach down South Bay Drive is the biggest embarrassment in all of Naples. It is slum-like how poorly this area has been allowed to exist over the years. These 30 owners are ecstatic about what Stock is proposing and the idea of us living in an area that could be really the crown jewels of North Naples now, worthy of neighbors like the Turtle Club and a Ritz -Carlton, is something we are all very excited about, in support just unconditionally. I can tell you that I represent a silent majority. You know how many people you represent in your particular districts. There's only a handful of people here at this meeting, and most of them are giving these impassioned pleas that have nothing to do about the future or what's the best type of development for where we're at. We want residential, we want it to look first class, and we want it to be something that we can be proud of that will increase our property values without compromising the density of the area and the neighborhood. I think that the DaRuMa development just, I think, shows further proof that Stock is committed to working with their neighbors, creating green space, and a beautiful addition to our community, and we couldn't be happier for if it, and we encourage you-all to vote favorably for this proposal. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Maureen Gambocurta, followed by Maureen Straight, and then Michael Kafantis. Maureen Gambocurta, I hope I'm saying your last name right. Ma'am, you have three minutes. MS. GAMBOCURTA: Yes. I'm an owner in Beachwalk March 1, 2021 Page 233 Gardens on Vanderbilt Beach Road one block from the proposed One Naples. I believe that Stock intentionally came up with a grandiose plan knowing that they would have to make concessions. They make concessions now to make themselves look good and get what they probably intended originally. But the bottom line is that they still don't meet the current rules and regulations. Part one of Stock's plan was an amendment to the county's GMP in which Stock asked to change the current regulations that limit the density allowed on its land. It's original request and current modified request would exceed the density allowed on 16 dwelling units per acre or 87 units. Without this change to the GMP, the plan that he presented in his rezoning application, or Part 2, in which he asked for excessive height in towers, inadequate setback, several mid-rise buildings, and other considerations could not be approved. The point that came across clearly from the Planning Commission's meeting on Thursday, November 5th, was that the developer's proposal is unacceptable. The developer is pushing that mixed-use residential would be better than commercial, but they can certainly build a scaled-down version of that proposal. They can certainly bring the height and the density and setbacks within the current regulations and still have the same type of project. The development should fall within rules and regulations. Why does the county establish these rules if they're not going to be followed? We ask that Stock respect the existing zoning, and his proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan should be denied. Stock bought the land fully understanding the current zoning. He could have and should have asked for variances before he bought it. Why did Stock close on a property without entitlements? Stock is relying on previous situations that were voted to allow March 1, 2021 Page 234 developers to run over the wishes of your taxpaying constituents. When Stock Development incentivizes the Barefoot Pelican Condominium Association with nearly $576,000 in cash and services to subscribe to Stock's position, that shows there are no boundaries for developers. If there is a resistance problem, they simply throw money at it until it's fixed to their satisfaction. The idea, apparently, is that everyone has a price. Stock and other self-serving developers cannot be allowed to buy their way into our neighborhood and completely compromise our quality of life solely for their benefit. Please have regard for the will of the people and do not side with developers and the endless unrestrained growth. Traffic will be increased on a road that already has traffic issues. Showing you only four or five cars backed up at the Gulf Shore Drive light is not realistic. This is very obvious with the amount of traffic shown on the videos. It is clear that during the time the pedestrians are allowed to cross, more than five cars will back up. Beachwalk Gardens with 356 units has asked for a traffic light at their entrance due to traffic congestion, and it has been turned down. I have been told that the county states that there are too many traffic lights already on Vanderbilt. So why are we considering increasing traffic and adding a traffic light for the developer? We should deal with the existing traffic congestion issue first. The developer's traffic plans create an undeniable surge in traffic on residential roads which are already dealing with traffic similar to Beachwalk Gardens where residents have to make a right out of the development in order to make a left. The drivers then have to either make a U-turn on Vanderbilt Beach Road or drive through the residential area and up 91st Street. Stock should add concessions that they make in other developments and add a light to the Beachwalk Gardens. To March 1, 2021 Page 235 approve any plan in excess of existing rules and regulations sets a precedent for all future building. Any future developer can and will ask for exceptions based on this case. I ask, why is staff approving anything that does not meet the rules and regulations? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. GAMBOCURTA: Again, no exceptions should be made. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Maureen Straight, followed by Michael Rowe, and then Michael Seef. Ms. Straight, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this point. If you'll do so, if you wish to speak. Maureen Straight. (No response.) MR. MILLER: I do not see her unmuting. Oh, there she is. Maureen Straight. Ma'am, you have three minutes. MS. STRAIGHT: Hello. My name is Maureen Straight, and I live in Naples Park. And I will reiterate that I am opposed to the project. I do appreciate Stock's listening to the community and reducing the project, but I do believe it's still too big. I appreciate the commissioners listening to all of us and staying for this long, but I do request that they deny this, especially the land-use amendment. Living in Naples Park, I have a sense of this spot development will creep toward my neighborhood. In the reality of the traffic, there is no place for the traffic to go. There was a -- Commissioner Solis said, well, how will they get back to 41? Well, they will go down to Immokalee, but most people will turn down Vanderbilt Drive when they can't get to the beach, and then they will come back through 91st and 99th. These are not people who live in Naples -- One Naples; these are people who are March 1, 2021 Page 236 trying to get to the beach. So the congestion there will just get worse. And as a -- right now it's -- I don't know. You know, bikes, dog, cats living together. You know, mass hysteria. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mass hysteria. MS. STRAIGHT: In addition to that, it's a concern to my neighborhood. I would like you to consider that. I know I don't live next to it, but I'm certainly going to be affected for it. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Rowe. He will be followed by Michael Seef and Raymond Parker. Mr. Rowe, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this time, if you'll do so, please. Michael Rowe? Mr. Rowe, you'll need to unmute yourself. I will try you one more time. Michael Rowe? (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. Let's move on, then, to Michael Seef followed by Raymond Parker and Raymond Dearchs. Mr. Seef, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, and there you are. MR. SEEF: Yes, sir, yes, sir, thank you very much. MR. MILLER: You have three minutes. MR. SEEF: I hope you-all can hear me, and I appreciate your efforts in staying this late. But as you know, there are umpteen issues connected with One Naples, and they need to be worked out, compromised, or else retain the C-3 zoning. I live in the Beachwalk community of 356 dwellings, which is the largest community between Highway 41 and the -- and the beach, and the -- and we have huge difficulty currently with traffic during the season, and when there's beachgoers in one direction or another, but we also have a serious safety consideration, which you just heard March 1, 2021 Page 237 about a short while ago from Mrs. Maureen, and that's only going to get worse. And your TIS did not consider our location on Vanderbilt Beach and as I -- Vanderbilt Beach Road and, as I mentioned, we're the largest single community fronting on VBR, Vanderbilt Beach Road. And this is -- the unsafe condition is a major issue, but we're also concerned with your -- the zoning density, setbacks, open space, and the number of dwellings that are proposed by Stock. We ask that you deny the amendment to the Growth Management Plan for all the reasons that people have stated before. And I'll end with this: There is no planning when a commission can arbitrarily change zoning and growth management policy to approve these variances which also conflict with safety, community rights, and common sense. Thank you very much for listening, and I appreciate your efforts. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Raymond Parker, followed by Raymond Dearchs and then Richard Gallagher. Mr. Parker, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this time. There you are sir. You have three minutes. MR. PARKER: Yes. Yes, thank you. I'll just take 30 seconds of your time to say that I've tried very, very hard to keep up with the different iterations of One Naples as they've evolved over the last few years, and it's really impossible today to understand the (audio malfunction) of that Japanese restaurant property and how it fits into the scheme of things, and I can't imagine how the commissioners and the staff can also -- you know, look at this information and evaluate it properly. This is now, in my opinion, a very rushed proposal that begs to be, you know, at least slept on, thought of overnight before a decision gets made. I was against the original proposal. I'm encouraged that some March 1, 2021 Page 238 modifications, I guess, have been made in order to accommodate setbacks and different things, but I still am reluctant to support the project as it exists. Somebody said along the way that, you know, perhaps a Mercato kind of, you know, installation there is something people would want. Well, I, for one, would like an installation like that. And I hope that the commissioners, if you're going to vote tonight on this project -- and I encourage you not to -- that you vote it down and that you think about this overnight and have a better comprehensive view of the project as it sits. I do think it's spot zoning, and I don't like the developers push zoning rules and exceptions. I appreciate your work and look forward to your result. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Raymond Dearchs, followed by Richard Gallagher, and John McGaunn. That is D-e-r -- D-e-a-r-c-h-s. I hope I'm saying that right, sir. MR. DEARCHS: It's close enough. I appreciate it very much. MR. MILLER: You have three minutes. MR. DEARCHS: Thank you-all for -- thank you-all for listening to us this evening. A couple things: First of all regarding the setback, and a lot of people talking about the setback being 25 feet at Regatta. I walk by Regatta at least twice a day trying to get my exercise in, and while that might be true for one of the buildings, for the taller buildings, the setback is way more than that. And I do fear that the setback on this fortress-like parking building is going to make it look just like that, a fort ress around that block, and then that small setback, regardless of what the wonderful staff said, I don't think, is going to be enough. We're not going to like the look. March 1, 2021 Page 239 In addition to that, I don't like the height. I think the height's fine if it's limited to less than or equal to the Regatta or the Beachmoor, but it should be, in total height -- and forgetting the zoned height and all these other technical ways of describing it, the total height should not be any taller than those two buildings, and then we'd be fine. Secondly, I am concerned as a resident on Gulf Shore Drive that this will be used, as the treasurer of the association said, a precedent for further -- a developmental march down north on Gulf Shore Drive. And I'm very afraid of that, that this could be used as precedent for that, and it's not going to be an isolated decision that you make, which was brought up in the past. And, lastly, I would just like to say, that just remember, as representatives of all of us taxpayers and citizens of the district and the county, that thousands and thousands of people through their representatives and in conversations have expressed their interest against this project while the only people who have expressed interest for the project today have been the developer, a couple of restaurateurs who will benefit by being the only restaurateurs without having any commercial development, and a gentleman who was bribed with $9,000 a head to come here and make his comment. The individuals who were represented here against the project actually contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to be represented. They actually paid money out. So please consider all that, and please do the right thing by the people who voted you all into office. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Richard Gallagher, followed by John McGaunn, and then Rosemarie Pyott. Mr. Gallagher, you're being prompted. Oh, there you are, sir. You have three minutes. MR. GALLAGHER: Good evening. My name's Rich March 1, 2021 Page 240 Gallagher. I reside in Naples Park. As a preface, I feel compelled to state how embarrassed I am as a county resident by some of the behavior exhibited by body sides of today's hearing. Of particular concern is the comments made about county staff, though I was heartened by the commissioners' and Ms. Jenkin's rush to defend those staff. However, I question, where was the same defense when Mr. Yovanovich repeatedly ridiculed Mr. James Sabo, the county planner, at the Planning Commission hearings back in October? But moving on, there's been some dialogue today regarding existing parking garage setbacks and how they are in line with the developer's latest proposal. But let's remember, those county garages do not have two 145-foot-high towers rising from them. It's easy for the developer to argue compatibility using aerial views and drone-generated vistas but quite another when looking at the development from street level. My head, too, is still spinning with all the debate and variations and late changes to setbacks, densities, zoning, and actual heights. I think it behooves all parties to pause and assess the new revision. Lastly, I respectfully plead that you'll listen to your constituents. Don't fall into the same trap as Planning Commissioner Joseph Schmitt when he incredulously stated on the record that the public failed to understand the complexities of the One Naples project, and he knew what was best for us. I'm opposed to Stock Development as currently structured. Thank you, and I appreciate your consideration. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John McGaunn, followed by Rosemarie Pyott, and Suzanne Geoffrion. Mr. McGaunn, I hope I'm pronouncing your last name correct, m-c-G-a-u-n-n. You're there, sir. You have three minutes. MR. McGAUNN: Correct. March 1, 2021 Page 241 Good afternoon, Chairman. MR. MILLER: Sir, sir? You're going to need to mute your TV or whatever other audio source is playing this meeting. We will prompt you to unmute again, sir. There you go. MR. McGAUNN: All right. MR. MILLER: Sir, we're still getting some feedback. You must be sitting near something else that is playing the meeting. If you could mute any TVs or other computers that might be playing at the same time. We'll try again, sir. MR. McGAUNN: I'm here today to express my support -- MR. MILLER: Mr. McGaunn, now I can barely hear you, sir. MR. McGAUNN: Can you hear me now? MR. MILLER: No, sir. It sounds like you're not on your phone. I'll tell you what, Oscar, let's mute him. We'll try to come back to him at the end. Let's move on to Rosemary Pyott -- I hope I'm pronouncing that right -- Suzanne Geoffrion, and Tina Seely. Rosemary, are you there? Yes, ma'am, you have three minutes. MS. PYOTT: Yes, I'm here. Okay. I'm against the project. I think it is just too large for that corner. I wouldn't mind if you put something else there, but I just think it's just much too large for that corner. It just doesn't fit in with the area. You're going to see it from everywhere. I live over here on Bayside, and we can look over and see the Ritz-Carlton, and now we're going to see this huge monstrosity on the view over there, and I don't know anybody around here who's in favor of this. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Suzanne Geoffrion, Tina Seely, and then William Aziz. Suzanne, I hope I'm saying your last name correctly. You will need to unmute, ma'am. Suzanne Geoffrion, you will need to March 1, 2021 Page 242 unmute. You're being prompted to do so. One more call for Suzanne Geoffrion. (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. Let's move on, then, to Tina Seely, followed by William Aziz, and then William Schuman. Ms. Seely, I see you there. You have three minutes, please. MS. SEELY: Thank you. My name is Tina Seely. I own at the Barefoot Pelican. I have been in the area for 10 years, 11 today, actually, and I am really excited about this One Naples coming to our corner. I know that it's going to beautify our corner and match what we should have and what we haven't had, and it's going to actually make our building look better in Vanderbilt Palms. I've worked with Stock, with Keith and Ryan, and I can honestly say they listened to what we had to say when I was on the board last year, and they -- they even came to our association to talk to us. I have only the best regards to say for Stock Development. I've seen what they do, and they do a wonderful job. I'm very excited for them to be on our corner. I could not think of anybody else who I would want on our corner. As for everybody who is in our corner, everybody has approved having them, which is Vanderbilt Palms, which is Barefoot Pelican, which is Buzz's, which is Turtle Club. I think that this residential -- that's why I moved there, because it's mainly residential, but I could still walk and get a coffee or walk and have dinner, but I don't want it next to my building. I want to have the peace that we have now. That's why I bought in that corner. And just the fact that the streets are going to be not flooding and that we're going to have sidewalks and that we're going to have palm trees, it's going to be absolutely beautiful. So I'm not going to delay this, because I know you have more March 1, 2021 Page 243 calls. I really appreciate everything the commissioners are doing, and I believe that you will make the right decision. And the Planning Commission has already approved and now they actually have cut down and given us more that -- I think that everybody has a say, but I really truly believe that you will make the best decision, and I'm very thankful that you had time to listen to me today. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William Aziz, followed by William Schuman, and then Patrick Murray. Mr. Aziz, you're being prompted to unmute. There you go. You have three minutes, sir. MR. AZIZ: Thank you very much. We live at the Vanderbilt, which is just down the road Gulf Shore Drive. First, I'd like to thank the commissioners. It's been a long day. I have watched since 9:00 this morning. I'm sure you're exhausted. So thank you for your dedication in trying to do this. I would say that the best idea I've heard all day was putting a traffic light at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive. That is a very dysfunctional corner, and someone's going to get hurt. I think that's a very important idea. We think that the proposed building, as it is, is quite large for the site, not to mention the additional traffic that will come from guests of boaters with the marina. It will be oversized and I think much more complicated than it needs to be. I'd simply like to say that it should be scaled down. I'm not against a residential development there, although I also think a commercial property like Venetian Village could be also valuable in the area. In any event, thank you for the time, and thank you for your efforts. MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is William Schuman. March 1, 2021 Page 244 He'll be followed by Patrick Murray, and then we're going to try to connect with John McGaunn again. William Schuman, Mr. Schuman, you're unmuted. You have three minutes. MR. SCHUMAN: I'm here, but I spoke earlier as part of Save Vanderbilt Beach. I was the spot zoning guy. So unless you've got further conversation on that, I won't double dip. MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your honesty. Your next speaker is Patrick Murray, and then we will try John McGaunn again. Mr. Patrick Murray, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, sir. There you are. You have three minutes. MR. McGAUNN: Hello. Good evening. And I thank the Commission for taking all the time today. I've been listening since 9:00. My name's Patrick Murray. I'm actually an owner of Beachwalk as well as Vanderbilt Palms. I'd just like to bring up two issues that you make sure you guys address. Being a resident of Beachwalk for a better part of 12 years -- and I've listened to all the traffic surveys. You really kid yourself if you seen the traffic that goes up Vanderbilt Beach during the holiday season or during the season between November and April. You cannot make a left out of Beachwalk to try to get on Vanderbilt Beach Road to head down to 41. As a matter of fact, the other day, when I was there last week, it took me 10 minutes to wait for the traffic to pass, and that was at 2:00 in the afternoon. Being an owner of Vanderbilt Beach Palms, I would just like to say we are very surprised that Mr. Stock purchased DaRuMa. We asked Mr. Stock if he was in negotiation with DaRuMa quite some months ago. He said no. I guess that has changed. I will tell you that we were given a fairly de minimus amount of improvements to the building. We really have no choice, because March 1, 2021 Page 245 we're being surrounded by this development, and it was pretty much we needed to sign the document, take it or leave it, or we would get nothing. So I would just like the Commission to think of what they're going to do. I don't think that we're against the development, but it needs to be thought out, and the fact that they presented today about lowering the two towers is exactly what they're trying to do is force this issue and rush you guys to make a judgment. So I would just like you guys to think of the new development, think about the open-area space, because it's not going to be left for the public. It's only going to be left for the owners of the new development. And I thank you for your time. MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, that concludes the first -- all of the speakers that we have. I do have a list of nine names who we called that didn't unmute. Would you like me to try to call them quickly again? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just as a courtesy. MR. MILLER: Yes, sir [sic]. Okay. Oscar, stay with me, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: What happened to John? MR. MILLER: John. MR. YOVANOVICH: McGaunn. MR. MILLER: He dropped again, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: He dropped again? MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. Bob Giannetti. Mr. Giannetti? Mr. Giannetti, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. If you wish to speak, please do so. Mr. Giannetti? (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. Carolyn Baxter. Carolyn Baxter, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. If you want to speak, March 1, 2021 Page 246 please do so now. Ms. Baxter? (No response.) MR. MILLER: Edwin Eckert. Edwin Eckert. Mr. Eckert, you're being sent a notice to unmute yourself. Please do so now if you wish to speak. (No response.) MR. MILLER: He's gone. Let's go to John Nick. Mr. Nick, if you're there, please unmute yourself if you want to speak. (No response.) MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, so you know, I can see all of them here. They're online, and they're not unmuting, okay. Let's try Laura Donovan. (No response.) MR. MILLER: Laura Donovan. She's gone. We'll try Maria Tsakos. Ms. Tsakos, if you're there, please unmute yourself at this point. Maria Tsakos? (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. That takes us to Michael Rowe. Michael, if you're there, you're being prompting to unmute yourself. Please do so now if you wish to speak. Michael Rowe? (No response.) MR. MILLER: I've got two more, Madam Chair. Kathleen Curatolo. Kathleen Curatolo? (No response.) MR. MILLER: I know she was participating by phone. I haven't been able to get her to unmute properly yet. So we will try Suzanne Geoffrion. Suzanne Geoffrion? (No response.) MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, that is everyone. We have concluded. March 1, 2021 Page 247 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. That concludes the public part of our hearing. MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. That is all the public speakers. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich, the floor is yours, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. Hey, Troy, can you help me pull up our presentation again. MR. MILLER: Just a second. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Appreciate that. MR. MILLER: That one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Can you help me just jump to Page 114. MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, I can. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know there's a way you can do it without going through every slide. MR. MILLER: Hold on one second, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. MR. MILLER: Is that it? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the one right before it. I can just back up one. Thank you. Thank you. Well, it's been a long day. I think it was eight hours ago we finished our presentation, and now we've been listening to staff's presentation and the public. And I don't have -- I don't have a big close. If you have questions, that will be -- we'll be happy to answer them, but I do want to hit a couple of highlights to kind of go back to where we were. First of all, I think that there's no question from a traffic standpoint that the One Naples residential option is the best option for traffic. And for those who spoke to you from Beachwalk, I don't know if they saw Mr. Banks' presentation, but we analyzed the corridor all the way to U.S. 41. So their developments were, in fact, March 1, 2021 Page 248 considered when he was doing his traffic analysis and making the recommendation. So I don't really know what to say about Mr. Stuart's testimony other than to say that I will put Mr. Mulhere and Ms. Jenkins up against his planning expertise any day of the week. They both are familiar with your Land Development Code, your Growth Management Plan, and they both testified that what we're proposing is compatible and complementary to what is around the existing community. Mr. Stuart, at the Planning Commission, when I asked him about his experience in Collier County, he said he did one strip center many, many years ago on Rattlesnake Hammock, but he's currently doing a project in Seattle. That was his expertise for planning at the Planning Commission. And if you read their transcript, every one of his representations regarding what the Collier County Land Development Code says and requires was wrong at the Planning Commission and is wrong again today. He cited to you a section regarding the pedestrian 21-foot area. That deals with if you decide to do a Mercato-type development under C-1 through C-3 zoning in your code. We're not proposing to do that. So he cited to you another section that does not apply to what we're proposing to do. You can verify that with your planning staff. So his 21-foot-wide pathway was, again, an inaccurate recitation to what your code requires. The site plan that you have up here today is an excellent proposed plan for this project as we've modified it to your height and your setbacks. Your staff has looked at the changes that we did regarding setbacks. We've met what they asked us to do on the setbacks, and they've said that they believe that the 140-unit option with the 10-over-two heights that we're talking about is compatible and complementary, and they are supporting it. March 1, 2021 Page 249 They don't have a stake in this other than to make sure they're making a recommendation that's the best interest of the public, and they are recommending approval. Mr. Pires raised some concerns about making sure we don't do more than two buildings on the MU tract -- MU 1 tract. We're fine with that. We never had an intention to do more than two in the first place, and we thought the documents were clear that we were doing two buildings. But we're perfectly happy to make sure whatever we need to, to make it clear that there's going to be two buildings on the MU 1 tract does, in fact, occur. We meet the open-space requirement without DaRuMa -- please. DaRuMa is additional open space. We meet your open-space requirements under the PUD without the need for DaRuMa. I'm surprised that my voice is as gone as it is. But I just want to quickly highlight again, since it's been about eight hours, the benefits of the project. Specifically, I found it interesting that Mr. Stuart says that every project that's within the project is an outlier because he didn't like the densities assigned with those projects, but we are consistent with what's around us from a density standpoint. And, again, the Comprehensive Plan does not want commercial to be on this property. And I think, generally, people don't want commercial to be on this property. They really would like to see a residential project on this property. I thought the survey -- when you add the true facts, we have the same goal. Brian Stock has the same goal. Do the best project for Collier County, and what he's proposing is the best project for Collier County. We stand by our project. We believe a residential project, as we're proposing it, is in the best interest of the residents of Collier March 1, 2021 Page 250 County. We hope you will follow suit and will vote in support of the Growth Management Plan amendment and, of course, we'll make the change down to 140 units in the Growth Management Plan to be consistent with what we're requesting. That's just a brief summary of where we are. And we're open to answer any questions you may have regarding the project. It's been a long day. I know a lot of questions have been asked. B ut if you have any further questions of us or anybody on our team, we're ready to answer them. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, then Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Just -- you mentioned it towards the end on the open-space requirement. When do you -- has staff already approved your open-space requirement within this request for the zoning, or is that done at the SDP level? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's done at the SDP stage, but we're not asking for any deviations from that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand. I just wanted to clarify it. And, again, this is part of the process is where folks have a difficult time conceptualizing actually what's going to go on when we're doing a Comp Plan and a zoning change. It's difficult for people to -- I'm sorry. It's difficult for people to know and conceptualize that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You made a comment earlier on when you were over there about the DaRuMa piece, and like that young man, I'm saddened that that restaurant's leaving, but I think they'll probably find a new home. MR. YOVANOVICH: They are. They are looking for a new home. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The comment that you made March 1, 2021 Page 251 was without the -- without the commitments that you've made on that piece, there is no One Naples. Is that what I heard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. If we -- we are basically saying we're closing on DaRuMa's. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: If we don't close on DaRuMa, we don't have a One Naples project. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, the representation of commitments that Mr. Stock can do as a contract owner aren't really prevalent until he's actually -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Owns it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- until he's actually in title. He's got rights to make commitments as the contract owner but can't implement them until he's actually in title, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And we are not doing anything to take away any of DaRuMa's rights until we close on the pro perty. COMMISSIONER McDANIE: No. I mean, you can do that. As a contractor owner, you can't do that, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And just so you know, my daughters just learned about DaRuMa's during this presentation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. That's all my questions for you, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a question for our zoning staff but also a couple questions -- or a question for the County Attorney. Mr. Klatzkow, there's been issues raised concerning spot zoning and contract zoning, and I'd like to get your opinion. I can guess what it is, but I'd like to hear on the record what your opinion is concerning the issue of spot zoning and contract zoning if this is approved. MR. KLATZKOW: With respect to spot zoning, I don't know March 1, 2021 Page 252 how you can have spot zoning during a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment. We're changing, if the Board votes that way, the Comprehensive Plan so that the development on that parcel would now be approved. It would be compatible with the plan. So I understand spot zoning in Massachusetts. I understand spot zoning in New York. I don't understand spot zoning the way Florida currently operates in the context of the small -scale plan amendment. The argument was made that you can't have a small-scale plan amendment just for one entity. I'm not familiar of any case law that's ever said that, and I know that as a county we've been doing similar actions even before I became County Attorney. It's just something that we've been doing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How about the contract zoning issue? MR. KLATZKOW: No. The contract zoning here is -- there is no contract zoning here. In the context of the street vacation, they need it for the project. I talked to Trinity prior to the Planning Commission. Trinity said that the county is in a better spot with the new road system and the lighting than we were before, which is the reason for the vacation. The contract zoning is basically if you allow me this use of the property, I'll give you -- I'll just give you money. That's not really what's going on here. It's all part of the integrated project. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And then for our staff, current zoning is C-3. Can you develop a hotel in a -- in that district as it currently exists? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Can you tell me what the parameters would be for a hotel? What's the maximum? You've got almost six acres of land -- or actually got -- I think with DaRuMa's you've got, yeah, almost six acres of land, a little bit. March 1, 2021 Page 253 MS. JENKINS: I'll have to look at that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you do that real quickly? MS. JENKINS: Yes, I will. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So assume that DaRuMa's is part of that property. I guess that's what, six-and-a-half acres? MS. JENKINS: Six point two. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Six point two acres. How many hotel units could be built on that? MS. JENKINS: On 6.2 acres? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. MR. JESKIE: Is that your only question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. That's -- well, I think that's -- let me just make sure. That's it for right now. But if you could get me that answer pretty quickly, that would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I thought we were on the questions for the petitioner and not everybody, so I had two more, if I may, please. One was to the County Attorney, and that's with regard to the representations of precedent. Is that similar to the contract zoning? There's been a lot of representation that we're establishing som e kind of a new precedent by -- if this were to go forward. MR. KLATZKOW: Every land-use application is unique. In my opinion, you never set precedent with a land -use application. The one thing that you do do, though, is from a compatibility standpoint, once you start increasing density in an area, additional projects with that density then becomes compatible. But as a general rule, every land-use item stands on its own, especially in the context of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which is purely legislative. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you want to go ahead March 1, 2021 Page 254 with her? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, can I go ahead and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, of course. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do you have a kind of an estimate there? MS. JENKINS: Yes, I misspoke. We cannot do a hotel in C-3. The hotel was being brought in originally on this plan with a Comp Plan amendment and the PUD. But in the underlying zoning and C-3, they would not be able to do a hotel. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Then I did have one other question concerning the height. Your original staff report recommended approval with a maximum height of 125 feet. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're now saying that that height is consistent with what's in the neighborhood. Can you tell me what the actual height of this project will be compared to the 125 feet that you initially -- MS. JENKINS: The actual height, I believe, is 167 -- 65, 165. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Couple questions. Someone had mentioned several times that the vacation of road was some kind of a benefit, but what's really happening here is the road is being realigned, and that road is going to be open to the public. MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is you're correct, and now I'm stuck. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Now, is that going to be -- so the -- right. The road is being realigned so that it lines up with the parking -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Commissioner, this is the new March 1, 2021 Page 255 road that we are building that will be a public road that lines up with your -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there will be an easement to the public -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It will be a public road that we will maintain. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And through the landscape maintenance agreement, we will basically be taking over the landscaping for South Bay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Okay. I had a quick question for Ms. Jenkins. There's a lot of concern, I think, understandably, regarding the precedent that this would set and that this kind of development would march its way up Gulf Shore. I mean, I'm not aware of any other vacant commercially rezoned land anywhere on Gulf Shore, right? MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Everything north of Gulf Shore is either condominiums -- I guess there's La Playa, there's -- and then there's single-family north of that. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. It's RT. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It's RT. MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No other -- no other commercial property, say, at the very north end. That's 111 -- that's Bluebill and Gulf Shore. That's all condominiums at the north end? MS. JENKINS: That's my recollection, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the concern that this would happen again somewhere north of here, I mean, is that -- is that a possibility? I mean, I don't see how that would happen. There's nothing that's zoned commercial that's not a rezoned March 1, 2021 Page 256 residential. Could that happen? MS. JENKINS: Well, at any time a petitioner or a property owner can come in and petition you for a rezone or a Comp Plan amendment just like this. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- MS. JENKINS: But there's not another condition similar to this one where your Comprehensive Plan is directing a change from commercial to residential and incentivizing that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that was -- that was the explanation -- that was the intent behind that provision of the plan was to incentivize the switch, the change, from commercial to residential in this situation? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that was a -- that was a policy that we adopted years ago. MS. JENKINS: Years ago. With your original Comprehensive Plan, you wanted commercial to be concentrated into the activity center, so you incentivized the smaller areas to become residential. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. A couple quick questions, again, on the setbacks. The setbacks for -- on South Bay for Barefoot Pelican, you know, we've thrown around so many numbers. I want to make sure I understand the setback from the property line on Barefoot Pelican on both the north piece and the east piece. What are those? MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask James to bring those setbacks up to remind me. James, can you come with the setbacks. I believe it's 25 feet, but I want to -- MR. SABO: They're both 25. MS. JENKINS: Yep. They are both 25. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. And the March 1, 2021 Page 257 commercial building where Sotheby's is right at the entrance -- or the intersection of South Bay and Vanderbilt is what? MR. SABO: Twenty-five. MS. JENKINS: Twenty-five. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: On Vanderbilt and on South Bay? MR. SABO: Two fronts, 25 each. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not on South Bay, though. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ms. Jenkins, just a couple more questions for you. So the only setbacks that are less than 25 is the water, right? That's zero. MS. JENKINS: That's one. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And explain that a little bit more, just -- because we heard so many different things. Why would you want a zero setback? Why wouldn't you want a bit of a setback? So what am I missing? MS. JENKINS: Well, generally you're going to have a dock there that you need access to, right? So they'll have a dock facility, and the buildings can now be legally at a zero -foot setback. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So it's not uncommon? It's -- MS. JENKINS: No. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- not some kind of -- MS. JENKINS: No. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. The other one that's less than 25 feet was a small -- it's between the smaller buildings and South Bay, right? Isn't there a -- there's a southern part of a building, and we said it was 10 feet, right? But everything else is 25 all the March 1, 2021 Page 258 way around, correct? MS. JENKINS: What they're proposing is 10 feet. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: In that one little spot, right, but everything else is 25? MS. JENKINS: No. They're proposing 10 feet all the way around on the interior setbacks, yeah. On tracts -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Just -- go ahead. Show me where the 10-feet areas are again just so I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And here. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only part where we don't own both sides of the street -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is this little piece right here, and -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I guess right here, too. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And, Ms. Jenkins, you know, one of the things where I think some -- you know, I appreciate every caller's, you know, comments. I think we all do, and that's why we're staying here late. And we've heard them all. But where I think some people were a little confused is a few people think we're voting on, you know, putting a shovel in the ground tomorrow and bringing in the bulldozers, and I equate it to the vote that we had on Great Wolf. I got so much hate mail from Great Wolf. Why would you approve the construction of Great Wolf? And we didn't approve the construction of Great Wolf. We just approved conversation to have the staff bring us back options. I know this one's in a little bit of a different, you know, stage. But explain to us, if we did approve this change from commercial to March 1, 2021 Page 259 residential, then what happens? Because some of the questions we asked earlier was, the marina's not a guarantee, right? They have to go through a bunch of things. They may not get 75 slips. There's a bunch of other things that might not be a guarantee as well, right? So maybe for the sake of just everybody here, and me as well -- but I think there's a few people at home that think, you know, we're starting construction tomorrow. What happens next if this change was approved from commercial to residential? MS. JENKINS: Sure. So they'd have to go through, you're right, permitting, DEP permitting for the marina. They're also going to have to go through site plan review with staff to check it. If they didn't ask for a deviation, and they haven't asked for many deviations, then they have to comply with the code. So their Site Development Plan will come through the county for review and approval that's consistent with what you approve today and what's consistent with the code. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And that's where, if you saw more specific things that were red flags or a big issue, the county has multiple steps to be able to say, wait, time out. These drawings don't now equate to the blueprints or we discovered something else, correct? MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So we would have many stages to be able to say -- I realize this is a big jump, this is a big approval, but it's not putting a shovel in the ground tomorrow -- MS. JENKINS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- correct? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other questions? Commissioner Saunders. March 1, 2021 Page 260 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. One of the things -- I want to ask our staff this question. But this commission has been very diligent in protecting our neighborhoods. There were a couple recent things that we did, the Limestone road gatehouse issue just a couple weeks ago where we protected The Quarry and Heritage Bay. And in the Bayshore area, we had the hole in the doughnut, if you will, and we made a determination that approving that was in the best interest of the neighborhood. My question to you is, is approval of this, in your opinion, really the best way to protect that neighborhood knowing that the alternative is commercial development? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. Knowing that the alternative is commercial development at the amount of commercial development that could occur there, it's the best interest of the neighborhood to forego that option. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no other questions, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Along the line of that question: Have you ever had an experience as you had today where you, as a staff member, the head of planning, have not had the opportunity to see the revised plans of a developer and knowing the incredible importance and this wide range of outcry from the entire community on this? MS. JENKINS: Not in the position I'm in now, no. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And I saw, as it was being unveiled, Mr. Sabo looking and copying things down. Do you -- in your professional opinion, not personal opinion, would you have preferred to have more time so that you could have integrated it into the larger picture? MS. JENKINS: Yes, I would have preferred to have more time to be able to provide a presentation to you to have that analysis. The March 1, 2021 Page 261 changes that we made that were put on the overhead for you that were highlighted were something that staff felt comfortable reviewing at lunchtime and then coming back and making an opinion with you. But, certainly, we would have liked to have known that beforehand so we could make a presentation to you that was complete. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is it not the custom -- which I think I've heard Mr. Yovanovich speak before and criticize another -- another advocate in a meeting. Isn't it the custom to submit these plans seven full days before the hearing? MS. JENKINS: Generally, we see changes occurring up to the hearing. We would certainly prefer that they be submitted seven days before, but we see changes coming in right bef ore it goes into your agenda packet as well. So as long as staff can respond to it, that's the key. And the amount of change that occurs is the key to that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And then can you name a community where they attribute open space to pools on the top of a building? MS. JENKINS: Not right now, not just thinking about it right offhand. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So where did that come from? MS. JENKINS: Well, it's allowed in the code to have open space that is playgrounds, hardscapes, things like that. So it doesn't -- the code doesn't say where the open space has to be, but it gives you an idea of what is considered usable open space, like tennis courts and playgrounds. So you can imagine hard surfaces and recreation facilities. So it's really about the recreation facility, and this is the open space, and they are providing that on the rooftops. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So -- but this would be a judgment call on your part? March 1, 2021 Page 262 MS. JENKINS: Well, the code does allow those types of facilities, and the code doesn't say it has to be on the ground or up on the building. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So -- MS. JENKINS: So the location is optional. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- the testimony about Mr. Stuart when he indicates that it does -- that it does talk about but not on -- not part of a building as I remember, something -- MS. JENKINS: I don't agree with Mr. Stuart. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, can I just clarify something here -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- because I thought Mr. Yovanovich had said that they're not -- that was something that was done in April of last year and was withdrawn; t hat there's no open space on top of the buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Commissioner Saunders. I want to clarify on the record, we are not using the pools on top of the buildings to meet our open-space requirements. We're not doing that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But you meet those requirements even without the DaRuMa parcel? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for that. Thank you. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Could you just repeat that. I want to make sure I heard that right. So the application without the consideration of the DaRuMa piece met the open-space March 1, 2021 Page 263 requirement -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- without counting the pool, so that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not counting the pool towards our open-space requirements -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and the PUD meets the 30 percent requirements on its own. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't need DaRuMa's to meet the 30 percent, and we were not using the pools -- the pools on top of the buildings as open-space calculations. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And staff is in agreement with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: They said we could, but we're not asking to do that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I mean, in agreement that it meets the open-space requirements without the pool? MS. JENKINS: They have not asked for a deviation, and the open space will be required on their Site Deve lopment Plan to be shown. So they will have to be in compliance with that, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And has anyone on the staff had an opportunity to -- if you factor in the amount of open space, that the DaRuMa's piece will, you know, constitute in terms of the overall project? Has anybody figured out what that percentage is? MS. JENKINS: What I understand is that the One Naples project, let's say it's five acres, DaRuMa's about two acres. So, you know, it's a pretty high percentage to add -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: DaRuMa's is .7 acres. March 1, 2021 Page 264 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Point 7. MS. JENKINS: Point 78. MR. YOVANOVICH: Point 78. MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the rest of it is how much? MS. JENKINS: 5.42. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 5.42 and .7, that's, what, 15 percent? MR. YOVANOVICH: So 5.42 times, you know, .3 is, like, one-and-a-half acres ballpark, and then you're going to throw another .78 on top of that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's close math; not to the precise number. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So that's -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. All right. We have before us -- County Attorney Klatzkow if you would just briefly go over what we need to make a decision on and what the votes required for it and where we start, please. MR. KLATZKOW: You need four votes for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. You need four votes for the PUD. So, basically, the project needs four votes. Vacation would need three, but it doesn't matter. It needs to be four votes. You can vote on them separately if you want or all together. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we should vote separately if we could, if we're in agreement. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So do I hear -- are we ready to vote? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ready. Do you want me to March 1, 2021 Page 265 do it, or do you want to do it? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I'll make a motion for approval. We're going to vote on these individually, 1, 2, and 3, 2A, and this is the Comp Plan amendment, if I'm not mistaken. MR. KLATZKOW: 2A is the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 2A's the vacation. MR. KLATZKOW: -- vacation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hold it. 2A is the vacation. What am I looking at? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: B. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let me make sure -- because I was looking at the -- what I had here as my agenda package, which was -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Do you want me to read them? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, please. This -- he just handed me -- forgive me, Madam Chair. I was -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that's all right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm looking at the short form of the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. That's fine. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- of the advertised hearing, so -- and it's different for – Item #2A RESOLUTION 2021-47: VACATING THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN GULF SHORE COURT, THE 20-FOOT ALLEY IN BLOCK “D” AND A PORTION OF CENTER STREET, ALL PART OF THE PLAT OF VANDERBILT BEACH CENTER, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 16 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF March 1, 2021 Page 266 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ONE NAPLES PROJECT. THE SUBJECT RIGHT-OF-WAYS ARE LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – ADOPTED MR. RODRIGUEZ: The first item, Commissioners, if I may, Item 2A, is a recommendation to disclaim, renounce, and vacate the county and the public interest in Gulf Shore Court, the 20-foot alley in Block D, and a portion of Center Street, all part of the plat for Vanderbilt Beach Center, Plat Book No. 3, Page 16, of the public records of Collier County, Florida, as part of the application for the One Naples project. The subject property -- or the subject right-of-way -- right-of-ways are located in the northeast quadrant of the intersections of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road, Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I'll make a motion for approval of that one as recommended in the executive summary. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll second. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, on the motion, I want to make sure, we're on Item 2B; is that correct? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 2A. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: 2A. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Vacation of the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. This is the vacation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. March 1, 2021 Page 267 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I have no comments in reference to the vacation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Neither do I. So there's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. Aye. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What was the vote; was it 4-1? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Four-1. And please note that I will be voting against this -- this project as it stands right now. I'm not saying -- I'm not saying I'm terribly an old timer but, you know, I've been kicked around a lot in politics for the last 20, 25 years. I have never been in a hearing where a -- the applicant comes in and changes the statistics and the numbers of the development an d not given the public, the staff, even the Planning Commission a time to review and assess it. This is the most controversial and probably most important issue we've had before us in many, many years, and not to -- you know, it was a decision of this commission not to continue this, but I think this is wrong. We must go ahead with this, and we will tonight, but it's not fair. It's not fair to the public who elected us, our taxpayers. And just to sum this up, I have briefly copied down some of the comments of some of the people that spoke tonight. And I'm just going to review some of them with you, and I want you to remember March 1, 2021 Page 268 these words after this is over. We want it to be done. There's no "we don't want it to be done." It says, we want it to be done in a responsible manner with support of the neighborhood. I hope you will make a wise decision and represent us. I am one of thousands of people who oppose this development. The people who vote, we don't want it. It doesn't fit there. The residents don't want it. You have our quality of life in your hands with your vote. I think it's prudent for all parties to pause and assess the development. It needs to be thought out. This has been an unfortunate day for Collier County because what we weren't doing is working with the people in the neighborhood where this will sit. We are setting a standard, and that standard says we know what's compatible for this neighborhood now, and this is not compatible to this neighborhood as it sits. It could be. I'm not here saying that this is a bad development. I'm saying this is too intense for this area. And we could work this out. But this is not the decision of the day. And I think it's a sad -- it's a sad comment on us as lawmakers and as legislators. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I was rather insistent on moving through today and finishing the public hearing and getting us to the point where we are right now. I'm not insistent on making a decision tonight. If the Board feels that we need more time, we can come back next week. We 've got our commission meeting next week. We don't have to make a decision tonight. I'm going to turn to Commissioner Solis and just kind of ask your opinion. Are we ready to vote on this now, in your opinion, or do we need to remand this to the Planning Commission for them to take a look at all of the things that have been done? We've closed March 1, 2021 Page 269 the public hearing. There would be no more testimony. It would be simply Planning Commission -- and I'm not suggesting we do this, but this is just a thought. Planning Commission hears the new package, staff hears the new package, everything is completed, come back to the Board. Are we ready? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, first, I would say that we heard -- just heard from staff that while these changes came up today, that they've had a chance to review them, and they're -- they would recommend approval based upon these revisions that lower the size of -- the height of the building and reduce the density by, what, 30-some-odd units and increase the setbacks, which have always been the main -- what I've always considered to be the main stumbling blocks for the whole thing. And so, number one, we've heard from staff that that -- that they've reviewed them and that they agree that they lessen the issues. Number 2, I would say to the chair that revisions on the fly is exactly what happened at the Planning Commission, which happens in almost every single zoning meeting that we have. At the Planning Commission, the planning commissioners argued back and forth on the height of the building, and those things happen. You know, I have thought about this. This is my district. I've lived in District 2 since 1993. This is where, most of the time, I would go to the beach. And I understand the neighborhood. I also understand what being in a development like the Mercato is. My office was in the Mercato for many years. And having a commercial property, having this developed intensely as a commercial property I think would fundamentally change the neighborhood, and I'll tell you why. First, this will be an attractor, just like Venetian Village is an attractor, just like the Mercato is an attractor. I think somebody said that nobody would come here but people that live in the neighborhood, and I think that's March 1, 2021 Page 270 just -- that's just an unrealistic idea of -- you know, how many places can you go dine, drink, and walk to the beach in Collier County? Maybe three. Maybe. So it would be an attractor. That is -- brings up another issue for me, and that is that Vanderbilt Beach Road is a policy-constrained road. It's constrained to what it is now by policy by the Board, which some future board can change. And that's going to put pressure on there being some change to Vanderbilt Beach Road, which I don't want to see and nobody in the neighborhood wants to see, and that's always been an issue. I think we've heard what these changes mean. The staff had recommended approval based upon more intensity, higher buildings, and less setbacks. The petitioner has offered to address those to make it more compatible. And in terms of -- and what I've told everybody, what I've told the Save Vanderbilt Beach folks and then I've told Stock Development, the compatibility is very clear. You've got the Regatta here, and you've got Beachmoor here. They are what they are. And this is as close to those two as I think we can get. So I don't feel that there's any -- any need to send this back to the Planning Commission. I mean, what would they review? They would hear the same thing that we heard from staff today. And so we've had 10 hours -- almost 12 hours of public hearing. We've heard from at least 10 experts. We've heard from staff two or three times. We've heard from the opposition. And I think we need to make a decision and move forward. I don't see -- the staff isn't going to, as I understand it, make any other recommendation than what we've already got. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Although I appreciate what Commissioner Taylor said, first off, we've only voted on the March 1, 2021 Page 271 right-of-way. So to say that, you know, we've made a huge mistake, I haven't voted on anything yet when it comes to this project, you know. So 2A was a basic vote that I think should have been unanimous, because it wasn't the heavy-lifting vote. You know, a lot of what citizens enjoy now in Collier County was once protested against, a lot of developments and whatnot. So I don't sit here and say, you know, because a large group of people who -- you know, there's also -- I always say the folks that are for something, they're out playing golf and fishing. The people who are against something, you know, will come to the podium, although I don't discount anything that the group has said. I guess I sort of want to just piggyback a little bit on what Commissioner Saunders said. One of the reasons why I also agreed to stay here the entire time is we were hot. We had momentum. You have all the right people in the room. And I guess maybe this question is for Ms. Jenkins, and maybe you could just wave, or if you feel like you need to come forward. I appreciate that you and your team were able to react on the fly. I don't think the adding of DaRuMa was some big, huge last-minute zero-hour type thing. I mean, much like what Commissioner Solis said, we should able to react and be agile and flexible. The question I would have for you is, there seems to be a lot of pen and ink sort of add-ins today. Is there anything gained -- with your expertise back to us, is there anything gained by taking all the pen and ink things, all the things that were agreed to really quick here, all the last-minute wrangling that you-all had to do over lunch to add that stuff formally into a document, take one last look over something that's formal and typed, it has no little, you know, magic marker type things? And I'm not being -- you know, I'm being a little bit, you know, sort of not specific, but -- or literal, I guess. Is there any advantage to that, to give you and your team the one last March 1, 2021 Page 272 look to work with Stock Development and have them add in all the little changes that were -- to a lot of people in the general public today seem to be sort of off-the-cuff? Which in my opinion weren't. This is the way it actually works. But would there be something gained for your team to be able to have a solid document that had everything on it, any, you know, last little questions you had so that we were 100 percent sure every T was crossed, every I was dotted? MS. JENKINS: So we will control the changes to the document now. And we've heard all the testimony, all the commitments that have been made today, all the changes. We will review the record again to make sure that we catch every change, every commitment that's been made by the applicant again. So, typically, staff -- after a board hearing, if there's changes made to a document, staff will make those changes to the adopted ordinance before it's sent to the Clerk. So we're good with making those changes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I just -- you know, I want to commend Commissioner Solis. That was a very succinct statement with regard to how things have transpired. We've addressed the density. There was concerns of density. There was concerns of height. We've addressed that. The develop -- you know, I candidly have been dismayed by the quality-of-life issues for the people that are already here for the lack of traffic control. Traffic's a huge issue. And to know that there's that much difficulty for people to get through that intersection just because of pedestrian traffic when we could have taken care of that is an issue. I'd certainly like, at some stage, to have discussions as to what our future plans are for maybe a roundabout over at Regatta or at March 1, 2021 Page 273 another area that's more conducive just to help the traffic flow for all of the residents, so -- we took care of the time constraints with regard to the developer's commitments. So I certainly know and understand -- I understand the residents, the folks that spoke in opposition of the project. I understand their concerns. But with the underlying zoning that is there and just an oversimplified process of 100,000 square feet of allowable square -- of commercial, C-3 zoned property, and the intensity/density that comes with that in comparison to what's being proposed which, as best as I can tell, equates to about 25,000 square feet of commercial intensity/density -- intensity and density of the property. It's -- the residential -- the conversion from commercial to residential makes a tremendous amount of sense to me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As I said when I was making some comments earlier, we go way overboard -- and I shouldn't say way overboard, but we do do everything we can to protect the neighborhood, and I pointed out a couple examples in just recent weeks. I'm going to rely on our staff. They've indicated that this, in their view, is the best approach for protecting that neighborhood. I'm going to rely on Commissioner Solis. He represents that district and made, I think, a very forceful argument that this is the best approach for the development of that property and for protecting the surrounding area. So I'm ready to vote tonight. I was just throwing out the possibility if we needed more time that we had that option. But I'm prepared to move forward with this tonight. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So just one last word before we start to vote. I hope my colleagues realize that we, again -- not me, but you are, again, increasing density in a county on infrastructure that March 1, 2021 Page 274 we cannot improve or expand. So do I hear a motion? Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Now, you want to read No. 2B, I believe it is, sir. Item #2B ORDINANCE 2021-08: APPROVING THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT - 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 AMENDING THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ADD THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 172 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR HOTEL ROOMS/SUITES, BUT NO LESS THAN 40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USES, AND A MARINA AND A SHIP STORE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 5.42 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 March 1, 2021 Page 275 – ADOPTED MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners, Item 2B of your advertised public hearings: Recommendation to approve, by ordinance, the Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict 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 amending the urban mixed-use district, residential subdistrict to add the Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict to allow construction of up to 172 multifamily dwelling communities. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Strike that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's to be amended to 140. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Hundred and forty. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What's in our printout says 172, but they already agreed to the 140. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioner. To allow construction of up 140 multifamily dwelling units but no less than 40 residential units and 10,000 square feet of C-3 commercial intermediate commercial uses, and a marina and a ship store. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5.42 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. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Before I make the motion, I have one quick question of the County Attorney. With the March 1, 2021 Page 276 adjustments that were made in the hearing today, do we need to include those in my motion for approval, or are they -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. We'll be here till 10:30 if we did that. I've got Ms. Ashton over there who's been taking vigorous notes and talking to the -- and I've got the staff -- well, we'll give you the document that you are voting on. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then I'd like to make a motion for the approval of the -- adopt a small-scale amendment. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I ask one question before we do that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's hear, is there a second? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There is a second. Please go ahead. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Does the 5.42 acres change, since we've got the restaurant? Anything? And should there be any stipulation in there saying that if something falls through with the restaurant, like you said, Mr. Yovanovich, we have no One Naples? Those -- is that any terminology that should be in there? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's in -- may I? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since you asked me. That's in the PUD. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the next -- that's the next vote. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I wanted to make sure that the right verbiage is in there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. March 1, 2021 Page 277 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. Aye. Carries 4-1. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And last, but not least, 2C, sir. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can I -- I don't know that we need to read the whole title, because there are some mistakes in it. So I'll save you that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, then with -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Recommendation to approve an ordinance. Start there. Item #2C ORDINANCE 2021-09: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS March 1, 2021 Page 278 ONE NAPLES MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 172 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR HOTEL ROOMS/SUITES, BUT NO LESS THAN 40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UP TO 208 FEET IN HEIGHT INCLUDING A PARKING DECK, AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USES, AND A MARINA AND A SHIP STORE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 5.42 ± ACRES: AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE – ADOPTED MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioner. Item 2C of your advertised public hearing, recommendation to approve 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. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved with the -- and, again, I'm assuming we're going to bring in the public hearing discussion as part of that particular motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. ~~<$ ~~ ~ #-- March 1, 2021 Page 279 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. Aye. Carries 4-1. MR. YOVANOVICH: You have one more. Item #3A A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND VANDERBILT NAPLES HOLDINGS, LLC FOR DEVELOPER FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS TO LANDSCAPE, IRRIGATION, LIGHTING, BRICK PAVERS, AND OTHER SITE FURNISHING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF- WAY ABUTTING THE ONE NAPLES PROJECT – APPROVED MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Under your County Manager's report, Item 3A is a recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Collier County landscape maintenance agreement between Collier County and the Vanderbilt Naples Holding, LLC, for developer funded improvements to landscape, irrigation, lighting, brick pavers, and other site furnishings improvements within the right-of-ways abutting to the One Naples project. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for approval on that as well. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. March 1, 2021 Page 280 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. Aye. It carries 4-1. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a -- I just want to thank the Commission, our staff, the audience, everyone that was invol ved in this, in pursuing this or finishing this today. I think. It was the right decision. And I want to thank the Chairman for permitting that to occur. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I was outvoted. Meeting adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:38 p.m. March 1, 2021 Page 281 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ___________________________________ PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ___________________________ CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.