The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 07/16/2015 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JULY 16, 2015 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2015, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY A 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Special LDC/CCPC June 8,2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS . 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DOA-PL20150000545: A Resolution amending Development Order 84-1, as amended, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact by providing for: Section One, Amendments to Development Order by amending the Master Development Plan to convert Lots 16 through 20, comprising 8.93± acres of property from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Conclusions of Law; and Section Four, Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders, Transmittal to Department of Economic Opportunity and Effective Date. The subject property is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Beck Boulevard in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 1 26 East and Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (companion item to PUDA-PL20150000281) [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner] B. PUDA-PL20150000281: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-10, as amended,the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending the PUD Master Plan to convert Lots 16 through 20 as shown on the PUD Master Plan from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial; and providing an effective date. The subject property is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and Beck Boulevard in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (companion item to DOA-PL20150000545) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] C. PUDA-PL20120001128: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending ordinance number 92-23, the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), as amended, by amending Section IV, Permitted Uses and Standards to add a 150-foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted use, to increase the maximum height for the communications tower to 150 feet and add setbacks for the communications tower, amending Section V, General Development Commitments to remove water management and environmental commitments, and replacing Exhibit A,the PUD Master Plan, with a revised PUD Master Plan, for the PUD property located at the southwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Bailey Lane in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP,Principal Planner] This item has been continued from the July 2,2015 CCPC meeting: D. BD-PL20140002207: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD-PL20140002207 for a 10-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 30 feet to accommodate a 9-slip boat dock facility for the benefit of Dockside PUD, Ordinance No. 2014-16, located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Henderson Creek Drive in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2015 SUBJECT: DOA-PL20150000545,TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT(DRI) (COMPANION ITEM TO PUDA-PL20150000281, TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Agent: Mr. Rob Johnson, Director Mr. Fredrick E. Hood,AICP Sky Angel Holdings, LLC Davidson Engineering, Inc. 1300 Goodlette Road North 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34102 Naples,FL 34104 NOTE: Many parcels within the DRI have been sold to others. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks an amendment to Development Order 84-1, as amended, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact by providing for: Section One, Amendments to Development Order by amending the Master Development Plan to convert Lots 16 through 20, comprising 8.93+ acres of property from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Conclusions of Law; and Section Four, Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders, Transmittal to Department of Economic Opportunity and Effective Date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located in the southeast quadrant of the I-75 Tollgate Plaza intersection with Collier Blvd, fronting on Beck Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 49, Range 25 and Section 2, Township 50,Range 26, Collier County, Florida(Please see the Location Map on the following page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to convert Lots 16 thru 20 within the Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DRI, DOA-PL20150000545 JUNE 25,2015 Page 1 of 4 Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SWFRPC): The SWFRPC heard and approved this Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to a previously approved Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19) Florida Statutes on May 21, 2015, August 14, 2014,with staff's recommendations that are shown below: "The SWFRPC role in coordinating the review process of NOPCs is to determine under the authority of Chapter 380.06(19)(a) F.S. if "any proposed change to a previously approved development creates a reasonable likelihood of additional regional impact, or any type of regional impact created by the change not previously reviewed by the regional planning agency. " It is the Council staff's opinion that no additional regional impacts will occur from the proposed change and do not object to the change. " RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Approve the change to land use designation that Council staff finds is not a substantial deviation and does not create any additional regional impact not previously'reviewed by the RPC. (Please see attached SWFRPC Staff Report) DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY(EOC): DCA has not offered any objection to the proposed amendment. COUNTY STAFF ANALYSIS: Development authorizations contained in DRI Development Orders are prerequisites to zoning actions that implement DRI land use authorizations. DRI Development Orders are intended to address regional impacts of a project. As noted in the RPC staff report, the proposed change in land use designation does not pass the threshold to be a presumption of a substantial deviation under Sub-chapter 380.06(19)(a), Florida Statutes that states: 1 2. The following changes, individually or cumulatively with any previous changes, are not substantial deviations: 1. Any other change that the state land planning agency, in consultation with the regional planning council, agrees in writing is similar in nature, impact, or character to the changes enumerated in sub-subparagraphs a.-k and that does not create the likelihood of any additional regional impact. TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DRI,DOA-PL20150000545 JUNE 25,2015 Page 2 of 4 As noted above, the applicant is seeding to convert Lots 16 thru 20 within the Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial. Staff recommends approval of the DRI Notice of Proposed Change (DOA) believing this amendment will not adversely impact adjacent property owners or create an undue public safety concern if the DRI DO is adopted. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition DOA-PL20150000545 on June 25, 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)forward a recommendation of approval of Petition DOA-PL20150000545 to the Board of County Commissioners as described by the amending DRI Development Order resolution. ti Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed Resolution Attachment B: RPC Staff Report rt. rgC g2 } TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DRI,DOA-PL20150000545 JUNE 25,2015 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: ,,our, i A OM rO 2t,S NANCY G L• , AICP,PLA DATE PRINCIP• A ER ZONING D SION REVIEWED BY: RA i ND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZO 1 DIVISION MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: _ 1-1r J ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ./ rrrAge NICK "A • LAN'TID , 'EP COUNTY MANANGER DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DRI JUNE 18,2015 Page 4 of 4 $Y' DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 15- RESOLUTION NO. 15- t A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-1, AS AMENDED, FOR THE TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT BY PROVIDING FOR: E. SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER BY AMENDING THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONVERT LOTS 16 THROUGH 20, COMPRISING 8.93± ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION FOUR, EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, TRANSMITTAL TO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND BECK BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA (PETITION DOA-PL20150000545) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County approved Development Order No. 84-1, which approved a Development of Regional Impact(DRI) known as the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI on January 17, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Application for Development Approval (ADA) was incorporated into and by reference made a part of the Development Order;and WHEREAS, the Development Order has been subsequently amended several times, to wit: (i) Resolution No. 92-100(Development Order No. 92-1),February 11, 1992; (ii) Resolution No. 92-222, (Development Order No. 94-1)April 7, 1992; j (iii) Resolution No. 97-75 (Development Order No. 97-2),February 11, 1997; (iv) Resolution No. 03-428; (Development Order No. 03-03)December 2,2003; (v) Resolution No. 14-229(Development Order No. 14-02) October 28, 2014; and WHEREAS, the real property, which is the subject of the Development Order, is legally described in Exhibit A to Resolution 92-100 (Development Order No. 92-1); and WHEREAS, Sky Angel Center, LLC has filed a Development Order Amendment(DOA) Application and Notice of Proposed Change to a Previously Approved DRI (NOPC) to convert Lots 16 through 20 from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial by adding the parcels to the `B" parcels as shown on the Master Development Plan. The NOPC is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit"A"; and []5-CPS-01427/1185322/1]40 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRUPUD 1 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 6/09/15 Attachment A i 1 1 1 WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission reviewed and considered the report and recommendation of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and held a public hearing on ; and 1: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, with jurisdiction pursuant to Section 380.06, i s Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to consider proposed changes to the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on , the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, 1 having considered (a) the DOA Application and the NOPC, (b) the record made at the 3 aforementioned hearing, (c) the record of the documentary and oral evidence presented to the =: 3 Collier County Planning Commission, (d) the report and recommendation of Collier County ; planning staff, and (d) the report and recommendation of the Southwest Florida Regional g Planning Counsel, the Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the following Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Development Order amendments. i x NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,that: I SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MASTER PLAN Exhibit C contained in the DRI Development Order, Resolution No. 92-100, the Master Development Plan, is hereby amended and attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein as Exhibit"B". 1 SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT . I A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI does not constitute a substantial deviation as set forth in Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes,however, it does not create additional regional impacts. a I B. Pursuant to Section 380.06,Florida Statutes,the applicant submitted the NOPC to Collier 1 County,the SWFRPC and the Department of Economic Opportunity. ij C. The DOA Application and the NOPC are in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida i Statutes. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendation of the SWFRPC. I E. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to Section 380.05,Florida Statutes. F. No increase in overall development intensity is authorized by this Resolution. [15-CPS-01427/I185322/1]40 ] Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI/PUD 2 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 6/09/15 1 1 4 b SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI does not constitute a substantial deviation, as set forth in Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, but it does not create any additional regional impacts, and therefore does not require further Development of Regional Impact review. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Land Development Code adopted pursuant thereto. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AS AMENDED: TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 84-1, as amended, shall remain in full Y p � force and effect,binding in accordance with its terms on all parties thereto. B. Copies of this Development Order/Resolution shall be transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Economic Opportunity (Division of Community Planning and Development) and the SWFRPC. 1 C. This Development Order/Resolution shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida, this day of 2015. is ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE, Chairman [15-CPS-01427/118532211]40 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI/PUD 3 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 6/09/15 [ Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko ty\`^�' Managing Assistant County attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Notice of Proposed Change Exhibit B—Revised Master Development Plan 1 gg� fi [15-CPS-01427/J 185322/1]40 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI!PL'D 4 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 6/09/15 FORM DEO-BCP-PROPCHANGE-1 Rule 73C-40.010, FAC. Effective 11-20-90 (Renumbered 10-01-11) fi STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY DIVISION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT The Caldwell Building, MSC 160 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT(DRI) SUBSECTION 380.06(19), FLORIDA STATUTES ( Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires that submittal of a proposed change to a previously approved DRI be made to the local government,the regional planning agency, and the state land planning agency according to this form. 1, I, Frederick E. Hood, AICP,the undersigned authorized representative of Sky Angel Center, LLC, (APPLICANT) hereby give notice of a proposed change to a previously approved Development of Regional Impact in accordance with Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. In support thereof, I submit the following information concerning the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/ DRI (ORIGINAL/CURRENT PROJECT NAME) development, which information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, I have submitted today, under separate cover, copies of this completed notification to Collier County, (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,and to the Bureau of Community Planning, Department of Economic Opportunity. April 21,2015 Date Signature 1 } Exhibit A Page� of J.A. 1 5 2. Applicant(name,address,phone). Sky Angel Center,LLC Rob Johnson, Director of Sky Angel Holdings,LLC, Manager of Sky Angel Center,LLC 1300 Goodlette Road N Naples,FL 34102 clo Mr.Andrew Solis PH:239.390.1900 FX:239.390.1901 Email:rob.johnson @skyangel.com 3, Authorized Agent(name,address,phone). Frederick E.Hood,AICP Davidson Engineering 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239.434.6060 Fax:239.434.6084 Emoil:fred @davidsanengineering.com s 4. Location(City,County,Township/Range/Section)of approved DRI and proposed change. Naples,Collier County,Section/Township/Range: 35/49/26 and 2/50/26 5. Provide a complete description of the proposed change. Include any proposed changes to the plan of development, phasing, additional lands, commencement date, build-out date, development order conditions and requirements, or to the representations contained in either the development order or the Application for Development Approval. Indicate such changes on the project master site plan,supplementing with other detailed maps, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested by the Department or any reviewing agency to clarify the nature of the change or the resulting impacts. it Is the Applicant's intent to convert Lots 16-20 within Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial. This proposed change will generate less traffic, therefore having a less impact on the existing roadways. 6. Complete the attached Substantial Deviation Determination Chart for all land use types approved in the development. If no change is proposed or has occurred,indicate no change. No significant changes to the previously approved development program are being contemplated with this submittal. ) 2 Exhibit A Page A21_,of Igt 3 IG 7. List all the dates and resolution numbers (or other appropriate identification numbers) of all modifications or amendments to the originally approved DRI development order that have been adopted by the local government,and provide a brief description of the previous changes(i.e., T any information not already addressed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart). Has there been a change in local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the last approval or development order was issued? If so, has the annexing local government adopted a new DRI development order for the project? Please see the attached Composite Exhibit 1. • Ordinance 84-06 PUD Approval for 69.4 acres • DR!Development Order 84-1 approving ADA for 69.4 acre DRi • Ordinance 90-54 PUD Approval for 78.57 acres • Ordinance 90-92 Adding Environmental conditions • Ordinance 92-10 PUD Approval for 100.23 acres • Resolution 92-100 Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 • Resolution 92-222 Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 • Ordinance 93-91 Amending PUD Conditions F: • Resolution 97-74 Substantial Deviation Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 • Resolution 97-75 Amending DRi Development Order 84-1 extending build-out to 12/30/02 • Resolution 03-428 Amending DR! Development Order 84-1 extending build-out to 12/29/07 • EX-2010-AR-14663 Extending DRI build-out to 1/1/12(Under Florida State Senate Bill 1752) • Development Order 14-02/Resolution 14-229 8. Describe any lands purchased or optioned within 1/4 mile of the original DR!site subsequent to the original approval or issuance of the DRI development order. Identify such land, its size, intended use, and adjacent non-project land uses within ''A mile on a project master site plan or other map. This description is not applicable. The original developer, who would have purchased or optioned property within a X mile,is no longer involved in the DRI. There are two remaining vacant land owners within the DRI. 9. Indicate if the proposed change is less than 40% (cumulatively with other previous changes) of any of the criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b),Florida Statutes. Do you believe this notification of change proposes a change which meets the criteria of Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)2., F.S. YES X NO ( 3 is Exhibit A Pap 1_of/At 1 k 1 � y ) IOW H H. Ii E il li 10. Does the proposed change result in a change to the build-out date or any phasing date of the z 4 project? If so,indicate the proposed new build-out or phasing dates. ( N The proposed change to convert certain Commercial Properties to Commercial/ Light Industrial does not change the build-out date or any phasing of the project. 1. 11. Will the proposed change require an amendment to the local government comprehensive plan? �4 Provide the following for incorporation into such an amended development order, pursuant to ti Subsections 380.06(15), F.S.,and 73-40.025, Florida Administrative Code: I A Planned Unit Development Amendment and a DRI-Notice of Proposed change have been submitted concurrently with this application with Collier County Growth Management. i 12. An updated master site plan or other map of the development portraying and distinguishing the 1 proposed changes to the previously approved DRI or development order conditions. 0 i A copy of the original Master Site Plan has been Included for your review, along with a copy R of the proposed Master Site Plan. No changes are required to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. ( 13. Pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19)(f), F.S., include the precise language that is being proposed i to be deleted or added as an amendment to the development order. This language should address and quantify: k i There is no language change contemplated to the development order. The proposed change E to the master plan does not trigger a change to the development order. I a. All proposed specific changes to the nature, phasing, and build-out date of the development; to development order conditions and requirements; to commitments and representations in the Application for Development Approval; to the acreage attributable to each described proposed change of land use, open space, areas for 0 preservation, green belts; to structures or to other improvements including locations, F, square footage, number of units; and other major characteristics or components of the proposed change; I it is the Applicant's intent to convert Lou 16-20 (8.93 acres) within Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial. This proposed change will generate less traffic, therefore having a less impact on the ( existing roadways. o l i i ( 4 i I Exhibit A Pale „"of!2 ASAP .. , e4 5i b. An updated legal description of the property, if any project acreage is/has been added or deleted to the previously approved plan of development; The current legal description and boundary of the DRI has not changed since the last approved extension request. Please find attached, to this submittal, a copy of the legal description and sketch. c. A proposed amended development order deadline for commencing physical development of the proposed changes, if applicable; N/A d. A proposed amended development order termination date that reasonably reflects the time required to complete the development; N/A e. A proposed amended development order date until which the local government agrees that the changes to the DRI shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity reduction,if applicable;and Acknowledged. f. Proposed amended development order specifications for the annual report, including the date of submission, contents, and parties to whom the report is submitted as specified in Subsection 73C-40.025 (7), F.A.C. N/A l fi 6 5 i Exhibit A Page,,, of cz4 -EL v cn x U w ,. S._ 4.TS O Gi� o G: p^ 5 E v vI r_A4 o. O I A a. o E U g 4' Z .ti e a o I i 1.1 O 1 V 4) o E.! o, G. d d.; o . Z ..I. a 0: o - s W °" g A O •° o Z ' a 'tr.; is Q. } d (1) A ›` -v a c i oC d p w CC 2 w . W 4 k o ni H 1 L. n y Iu "'I'S V VI) o L o 0 OL to L.V 4 ,.,, C a,� .q. '-., . of In LI1 ,��` , = ,U 41 ,n G N p, q, .. W P N O $I. V 1 0 rs y C p 0 �,. 7•, d U v: ¢ ..:.1 O < M C 4t < v d ral o o cz 4) E W o cs: : t o E . ` F Q ;� o al — eXBfbit A z -° I 41 Pag Qf 0 . a 2 .y b w^ .o x E 0 O g O a W 3: .. O 4 y g. Q C V .4 U O 0 y, �.r O a z a N g b4 AO O `' o : F r -o > 1 A 3 3 4 F L bbA 0 bo +� O U C tv En • U U D :.C. + 'd co QO Cl) .5 = C.) U C 00 En 4 U ° y o a c c v ° `� o 0 ti o� cn o c v i i a a C . i zs "bn ; +o o 0. 4- bA >, E O N O b0 UI y C C b0 O id U O E. b0 0 cd-, co O y a� L N En I k 4t Ca Q qt 4t A Q N W O Q Q 0 * co G! ° v H 0 E '.p y = C s-,, O CO i C O. N O y g Ka 1 Page__/.. ids. 1 1 Iii as U CA Y tz:.��..� V i1 QQ+ • G a) O g • a O 1 N > O y • " • 0. 1 U Opp N W U 'O U 1 Z a i . _c c 4 R. W w („ i-1 Q :c if q ° o`• L G • u a GO d: MI 'C7 U 7 A es F., ai u C cn j •O 7 '.y U C C. CI 03 t H " H En 4 G, as tiy 3 N.g ' ) U . 'O U •U. Q c -o c 0 C v 2 d V c itl - Q 0' a) • u v cu ° p 0 > v c -D 0 0 0 y U 0 c.. o. c O ° y ° v w bU n Q c 1E c: 0 3 ` Q E o t i E o Q 0 ai • k a; 45 c c a o , • -, 0 ° V g E i a. 0 U i 'O u.) P Q u ..,..ti .N O y W Q v E ' a. : W a; W Q � cn ' * Lj d d : c/) a~ . 4t. L7 Q Q 0 : co It * 4t Gl 0 ai ao cd i O E ci „ ii E Y •3 A Z 45 Exhibit A I Page A.—of 2 I P. cn -U b II E 1 U O h C. O t tl, s U .0 r O a CA U ii C. U C al l i 0 t4 gig c 1 Cd V U k o �` N C h: F a. Q o Z a F.* ..0 I g M ri G4 O cd W " 0 CI o .t,Z 0, ,, 0 u o v > d a) 3 0 � .w o n . .5 A o = ai 1, 1 a , ';'A' -0 R • 0 1 • d o. 1) !: L 1, anN r: 0 U i CO C 14 5 x g f U .c v Z , 0 0 F c, o i ..4 t 0s 0,0 H Z a F 0 Uo re � ° -tt c24— 1 a? v o, .al H a ai= `d , .o _ rn rot , - G V O...3 U U H O d U cn . _ O = y O 7 J 0 l 4-. v 3$= C) U 1) [ > U Q Q. v C y F U O) . o 'tea.. 4 ; c v E ° i a 0 o m e Z = ~a 3 o U c1 ao a U -u E . E e. u aJ O r a 3 C o w u o. W .P ti O A °) 6 U .fl l0 .� c Ch L , c co 1 i. ct4 /1051'iv ai a g U a) 4. h 4 7) G ,n O , . 3 ? 3 g • Exhibit A p�� of 1 1. i 1 5 1 CD • y V • la t O II E F1. o 4 . IS L- O U] y 0 t 'a U z 'fl a H (a Kyy ge tu q 'It OD Ft V go r g o �, td 00 w o � H O •n, Q, 1 F 0 A 3 3 w 0 CI add N .O C/] on 'a E- N 'Li A 0 'ra4 'n U VI 0:1 cn C O b4 •4• G g t� G z m c ,0? 0 .a'41 •C f!? O U U 'O u 2 '-o o y: V V 4g 4 tO cud 4 c .0 O C C 0 O ' ^C G z y , tom,, L N e 0 , . = C O U . O g •V V G t.. . R O E + y d ,. k. O N U c C4 a 4) w at 4t in Q O A Q Q o 4t CO tt (I d Q o 0. 1 112 i v 0 ° o z CA z i. O vs a. « ; o cG 3 Exhibit A f I. s N y E t 0 $ii E h # O C, 2 O i y O LL U k.; r v .' U U a a) rr p n: H Oa 1 z R ... ..d u ,,,,, C v Q ! O O a � •0 U 0 U 6J > U r W • P E A •o c g v Z bUD 0 CUA `l) U I C y G Q a; >; C w Al 00 O O 2 .C x' C/] U Q` G � U 0 d U cd C N O E N . O C y C C '+:. y U 4 0 O C 9 0• " . 0 C ` OA ,1 4, O _ a ca O O w. c 'C cd 0 O U m 0 V ▪ 0 0.) • < °' •3.) < a O a Q .(7) f ] Q v O o p o 1 z ,-. O E y = € co i y <8 U C C v t 4:9 U v • C 4' Q C CO u 't o o °. E E^ a a. ca at tea & — u O ., a., rn a. U a Exhibit A I Page f. of, I SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL FINAL TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DRI NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE BACKGROUND The Tollgate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is a previously reviewed and approved multi-use project located in Collier County on CR 84 just south of Interstate 75 and east of CR 951 encompassing approximately 100.23 acres. The original Development Order was conditionally approved and subsequently adopted on January 14, 1984, by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. The original parameters of the project were for development on 69 acres and include 75,200 square feet of commercial, 300,000 square feet of industrial, 200 hotel rooms and 45,000 square feet of office uses. The project Development Order has since been amended five(5)times. This project has been ongoing since it was approved in 1992 and is mostly a built out development. At the present time, the entire infrastructure necessary for the Tollgate Commercial Center project has been completed. Most of the commercial sites on the property have been sold or are under contract for sale. PREVIOUS CHANGES There have been five previous changes to the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI. These changes were as follows: 1. On February 11, 1992, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 92-100. In summary, the applicant requested that the project be modified to include an additional 30.84 acres of surplus Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way and that the conditions relative to transportation, drainage, wastewater/water supply, and housing be substantially amended. The SWFRPC requested that the suggested Development Order be further revised. 2. On April 7, 1992, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the second amendment to the Development Order. Section 4.c.3., Transportation, was amended to require: (1) concurrency management through annual monitoring, (2) transportation impacts to the roads and intersections be appropriately addressed, and (3) the determination of proportional share of the regional roadway improvements be in accordance with Section 163.220,F.S. the amendment also revised Section 4.F., Housing; striking the termination dates for an affordable housing funding mechanism. 3. On February 11, 1997, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted a third amendment to the Development Order. Resolution 97-75 amended the Development Order by extending the DRI termination date from December 31, 1997 to December 30, 2002. 1 Attachment B } 4. On December 2, 2003, Resolution 03-428 amended the Development Order by extending the DRI buildout date from December 30,2002 to December 29,2007. In addition, Section 380.06(19)(c), F.S. automatically extended the buildout date to December 29, 2010. Consistent with these actions and the Florida Senate Bill 1752 (2010)the project build out date was extended for 24 months to December 29,2012. 5. On October 28, 2014, Resolution 14-229 amended the Development Order 84-1, for the Tollgate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact by extending the expiration date and the build-out date to August 1,2021. PROPOSED CHANGES On March 4, 2015, the SWFRPC staff received a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the Development Order for the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI. The proposed change is 411 to convert Lots 16-20 (8.93 acres) within Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from Commercial use to Commercial/Light Industrial. This proposed use change does not change the built-out date or any phasing date. The Tollgate Commercial Center DRI is heavily developed and is seeking the change due to future development plans of potential buyers who would require a larger parcel(s) with the Commercial/Light Industrial designation. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the application to convert 8.93 acres from Commercial to Light Industrial Commercial within Tollgate Commercial Center and found that that amount of change represents less than a 9% change to the original land use acreage. Based on the information provided in the NOPC application, Council staff finds that the request has minimal, if any influence, on the regional facilities or resources due to the proposed change of land use. Council staff believes that the proposed change meets the statute criteria in Section 380.06(19) Florida Statute because there are no additional regional impacts due to this request and the request is not presumed to be a Substantial Deviation. 3 a CHARACTER,MAGNITUDE,LOCATION The land use change does not affect the character,magnitude and/or location of the DRI. REGIONAL RESOURCES AND FACILITIES IMPACT The proposed change will not create additional impacts on regional resources or facilities.. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES The Tollgate Commercial Center DRI is located in Collier County and does not create additional significant regional impacts to other jurisdictions in the region, and therefore, 2 4 1 there are no multi jurisdictional impacts created by the proposed change. NEED FOR REASSESSMENT OF THE DRI The proposed changes do not require the DRI to be reassessed because no additional regional impacts,not previously reviewed and mitigated in the DRI,were identified. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSED D.O. LANGUAGE The NOPC did not included proposed DO language. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The SWFRPC role in coordinating the review process of NOPCs is to determine under the authority of Chapter 380.06(19)(a) F.S. if "any proposed change to a previously approved development creates a reasonable likelihood of additional regional impact, or any type of regional impact created by the change not previously reviewed by the regional planning 1 agency." 5 It is Council staff's opinion that no additional regional impacts will occur from the proposed change and do not object to the change. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Approve the change to land use designation that Council staff finds is not a substantial deviation and does not create any additional regional impact not previously reviewed by the SWFRPC. 5-15 3 1 Ftf MAPS Maps listed below and following are included in the report for reference. 1. Site Location Map 2. Aerial View 3. Master Development Plan 4 } ..40441‘tigio , _i . Air e tIi1 i . I S I•TS- ________...... .....,...!...,(..4...„_ I ) c,--..... RnoIQROAD . _ - ' I-7 it i I — cf r LEGEND ..eoutomer i I! "--OJOS ROADYS►YS 9OuRCES•COLDEN COUNTY OECORAPHIC INrORMATION SYSTEMS(2414) I 411111 ,.._, • i...,:a. - Ak •"11 II mean 11 �` '" �• . T y `. ... I ate" DEDAVIDSON DI ROADS ATE Inc. TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DRI 4369 NAP ES.R ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES,Fl 34104 PAYWeARt10 PHONE:239-344oee LOCATION MAP 5 a 1 f, r. i• ) 1 1 ; .. y s ill F j�1�,y'/ ; rid/ * 4 'r y II , r ; 't a �_.. f 1 t 5 1 ''' �.' r� :r, k I '1 i ` r* i ,r 1:. 1. t1 r t. g Itt. i 1fr li .1 1 -. 1S z ` — ,L•I ., J''�/ 4 4' 1 ' . 4 - .I . i! ..° ' Iii �� if 1 ' L k :v a -y / t ii. ..r k, .4- , 1 ., � ,fir " f,• + !- ' I } �,, !��' ' . S i • firi-� ...� r• .3. ,' . y ••I•tJl '` . n ' <� , , ,,. ., a !(•`f fad 4,- 41 w. j• . ,./.... . - ‘,,-r :1, . . . V d g •a l -'• r T I � V M .1 Aerial View 6 o v o < ti O O> 1 d I (f).—• P r I / —2-4.\NN i S. z VI N Nm Pi -i X XI z Exest. R/W lsF ( ..wnn near PHASE I S/.n rsnln Nwl Kiln - I B I ".1. ". � 44 ,.r � .,, 'r a 'Ilr ' . . ni2 0 "Ir nr mon -4- ism ACHES v v '• ^r nMu nTn ...r nil a wl . .. 'Y.' 1iT T..4. .17, le ....J. _•e ..mr„..._______ C.R. 84 / R/N LOIE-, p 'A• .D. NOM f0 PARCEL}: FARM.% • Ch TO BOTOIOSTS AND M ALR DTIITS.OADOM ONALLY,O'[S MOLLS IOU.ACCONCOATt f1RNtT,ASSMAMOLY,111R1LCSNT, ANO IMAM'MANY WSSIESS USES Master Development Plan with Existing and Proposed Land Use Limits AGENCY REVIEW LETTERS t 1. Florida Department of Transportation 2. SWFRPC Environmental Review 3. South Florida Water Management District 4. Collier County Water, Wastewater Availability 9y y4 1yy'. pp4 yA' h1 "n. xD' 8 } Cenhvin1CiI l9as x1015 Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT [004 1 11 ii vs Prulcwuy JiM BOXOLI7 coy FAtnoR Fop Myers,FL 33913 SECRETARY March 23,2015 Ms.Maryann Devanas Planner Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1926 VteIoria Ave. Fort Myers,FL 3390l RE: Tollgate Commercial Center Development of Regional impact (DRI), Notice or Proposed Change(NOPC) FOOT'Comments and Recommendations Dear Ms. Dcvonas: The Floridti Department of Transportation {FDOT). District One, has reviewed the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI NOPC (dated March 3, 2010 in aeeordNnce with the requirements of Florida Statutes (LS.) Chapter 38(1.06. The E)epanment offers the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council the following comments and recommendations for your consideration. The Tollgate Commercial Center DRI encompasses approximately 100.23 acres and is generally located south of 1-75,cast of CR 951 1 Collte_r Boulevard and north of Heck Boulevard in Collier County,Florida. Tlx:NOPC proposes to convert lots I ti that 20 within the Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial tar a total of 8.93 acres. The Department notes that the proposed conversion front "Commercial" to"Commercial/Light Industrial" for lots 16 l}tru 20 would generate less traffic compared to the existing approved condition, The Department has determined that the changes associated with the ;F'DI'C, are not anticipated to adversely impact important state transportation resources or facilities. Thank you for providing F'DO'I with the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed NOPC. If you have any questions please fee to contact me at (239) 2251981 or sarah,eatalaWot.state_11.us. Sincerely, Caral C 1ta1a C -- SIS/Growth Management Coordinator mp'1 District One cv: ttr.Rut'Eubanks Fiw ida Department tnt ao1'FcYwwmie Oppartanity www'.dcitslutc.11.i1!: 9 yOJ.0WE5T f09 I 1926 Victoria Avenue I Fort Myers,FL 33901 T r P:239.338.2550 I F:239.338.2560 I www.swfrpc.org c 6.1 L Pi.ANMO N° .tSUtS•REAt S0' From: Jim Beever Sent: Tuesday, March 31,2015 3:31 PM To: Maryann Devanas Cc: Margaret Wuerstle;Jennifer Pellechio;Tim Walker Subject: RE:Tollgate Commercial Plaza DRI NOPC I have reviewed the proposed Tollgate Commercial Plaza DRI NOPC, Collier County Ordinance No. 92-010, prepared for Davidson Engineering by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Dated February 26, 2015. The proposed PUD amendment (PUDA) proposes a conversion of 9.83 acres commercial areas (Parcel A)to commercial/light industrial (Parcel B). "A" and`B"parcels will provide goods and services to motorists and area residents. Additionally, "B" parcels will accommodate service, assembly, wholesale and related heavy business uses. This change does not appear to have any change effects on conditions for the project in the areas of Wetlands, Vegetation and Wildlife, or Historical and Archeological. I did not see letters of service regarding the effects of this land use change on potable water and wastewater utility supply for the change from commercial to industrial. These, indicating that utility service is available for the industrial types anticipated, should be obtained by the applicant to accompany the NOPC submission. The submitted materials on the provided disk concentrate on traffic impact analysis. I did not see indication if the new light industrial and heavy business uses will include potential hazardous waste generation or disposal. This is a matter that should be considered. pm Beever Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1926 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers,Florida 33901 Telephone (239) 338-2550 ext 224 Fax(239)338-2560 E-mail:jbeever @swfrpc.org Website:http://www.swfrpc.org/ 1 South Florida Water Management District submitted comments via email on April 28, 2015 The South Florida Water Management District(District)has completed its review of the Notice of Proposed Change for the Tollgate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact project (ADA#09-1984-002)and has no comments. The District offers its technical assistance to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,Collier County and the Department of Economic Opportunity in developing sound,sustainable solutions to meet the project's future water supply needs and to protect the region's water resources. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. Terry Manning, Policy and Planning Analyst South Florida Water Management District Water Supply Coordination Unit 3301 Gun Club Road, MSC 4223 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: 561-682-6779 Fax: 561-681-6264 E-Mail: tmanning @sfwmd.gov 1 1 C ier County Pubic Unities Division Planning&Project Management April 2,215 less'ca Harrelson,Project Manager VIA:E-MAIL Davidson Engineering 4365 Davis Blvd_ Nap es,FL 34104 S,:bje_t: Tollgate Commercial Center Darce ti: 76885100803 and related Water,Wastewater and IQ Availability Dear Ms_Harretsor: Water and Wastewater services are available for the above referenced project: a 10" water main and a 6'°force main serve the commercial center.Individual developed parcels within the commercial center are served by 8" water mains and 8' gravity mains. Irrigation Quality{IQ) water is not available to the project at this time. Specific connection points for the system tie-ins to water and wastewater lines may be made after submission and approval by the Planning and Project Management Department,validating that the up/downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in demand and flow. This letter implies no guarantee that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of potable water and sewage treatment and dispose capacity available to this property until the project has received a commitment for service. Should you have any further questions,please feel free to contact me at(239)252-5366. Sincerely, 4 Kris Van Lerger,Principal Planner Planning arc Project Management Department cc: Aaron Cron-er,F-incipa.Project Manager Brett Rosenblum,Engineering Review 0, 00i titi 4,,iiegi VerAwrert Declai m•3330 Taman Ito East mite 30$•Napes.}curio;u+l ie a3fi•239 252428a•i-AX 235 2t2-SS rd 1 AGENDA ITEM 9-B $ ! cnty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2015 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20150000281, TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) (COMPANION ITEM TO DOA-PL20150000545, TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Agent: Mr. Rob Johnson,Director Mr. Fredrick E. Hood,AICP Sky Angel Holdings, LLC Davidson Engineering, Inc. 1300 Goodlette Road North 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples,FL 34102 Naples,FL 34104 NOTE: Many parcels within the PUD have been sold to others. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending Ordinance Number 92-10, as amended, the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending the PUD Master Plan to convert Lots 16 through 20 as shown on the PUD Master Plan from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial; and providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located in the southeast quadrant of the I-75 Tollgate Plaza intersection with Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), fronting on Beck Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 49, Range 25 and Section 2, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida (Please see the Location Map on the following page.) TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 Page 1 of 13 iS MTA WOW SOU EYMO %Fri_ . 8 �, a ■ouLEVMO A . 'il 8 e ; 1 AIL 1 r 1 i i7 may;qual in @ ° y a g age 01 > il , i . 4 -- -- COUS0 14.EVMO .-_ cA NI ca�1 souBVMO p CAL i1 T Y i ! it 1 € F K in r'r > L V`-, 11 -4o "D 1 1 ; -I ° ° / k i1 a 1A a =i fig ig O i9m I I e Z C Dwrroaac 2 '- MI . . .'. /Ail—,*- W gig 1 Pz N OO / �/ c -r---'-'-'----ki: i PA PEI al::: ;;i1::. 4 ' • ili. N Ad 00 I •mism Z 'hod •,,�' I In wrzU I 0 - - in" .44 ) / .' l'a Ce'tt:::+1, - I F K ::::G:itl``'' -2 NU /IA, 1 / 004 Rio g1a -o I O ! , ao ow i l h m �O � Oil _If ailltk\V___.o s n ti r MASTER ;:, DEVELOPMENT PLAN >;>:;::<;:>: N irlq Cl TOLLGATE W COMMERCIAL CENTER °R' .•January, 1991 < m VI F O 4p0 8« OUbS CL LL � '1 / aP2 -kz <a <2 z EiR h n' 2.:(12,1 Wnn fW to a O7 fx^'< A i .z �■r gc :iF :i K =" F J t- a h Ell W i ' ! f°< A.14.464111 U• . / ' , •�Fp$4.EASEMENT /"' •. ;11 I g_ • oc igi 52 7 L� H e' F L • r 1 ,•_, TOLLGATE BLVD. [41' 4 6 / \\:\..,,,.„....,......,............:___,m i nW e' c n' C F §, () a J C.R. 951 '•ter�� t --- n EXHIBIT "A" 1 I A b ■ MAO*A MASTER 4,,. ,w.n < DEVELOPMENT PLAN ::<;::::< " Z TOLLGATE ?' s Ji E= COMMERCIAL CENTER s•:: _<> Cl) January, 1991 .� <Em X °ou W 8°« N " .,:::..!.:::..:::::::;::::..:.......:.1..y....".:.'.,7 SWY; dFi VIN JK Z 1- 11:0.......:.;.kirlf.:::::;i:i:': 14 ... o■dee ..4:i. OMNI 1.3E.q, :::.. u) ,5 °' 1 1 41:. ::::::1::::1 P 14 GA lx 3 1!! t� 1"" Mil a m Q g? Ell EASEMENT --..' . F. 1111 i 1' o n I 0 . C_ F r TOLLGATE BLVD. Y W�c 2 e' c 4. Q ~ C.R. 951 _A. L cT: i NM EXHIBIT "A" 1 r 1 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD was originally approved in Ordinance Number 84-6 and it along with two subsequent ordinances has been repealed. The current Ordinance Number 92-10 was approved on February 11, 1992. (Please see Attachment: Ordinance Number 92-10.) The petitioner proposes to convert Lots 16 thru 20 (8.93 acres) within the Tollgate Commercial Center from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial. The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD, which lies within Activity Center # 9, consists of approximately 100.23+/- acres of commercial and 1 industrial uses that are divided into two parts: "A" Parcels and "B" Parcels. The "A" Parcels, consisting of 50.23+/- acres, allow for commercial development. The "B" Parcels, consisting of 50.0+/- acres, allow for commercial/light industrial development. According to information provided by the applicant, 88,226 square feet of the permissible 348,600 square feet of commercial square- footage has been developed on the"A"Parcels and 314,626 square feet of the permissible 550,000 commercial/light industrial square-footage has been developed on the"B"Parcels. This petitioner seeks to amend the zoning delineation line that separates the "A" Parcels from the "B"Parcels within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. The proposed change will convert 8.93 +/- undeveloped acres from commercial ("A" Parcels) to commercial/light industrial (B Parcels). The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD is also a DRI (Development of Regional Impact); there is a companion DOA (Development Order Approval) associated with this petition. The proposed Master Plan has been amended accordingly. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: I-75 then White Lake Industrial Park PUD, a 144 +/- acre mixed-use industrial and commercial PUD East: State of Florida Trooper's Station with a zoning designation of(A)Agriculture South: Forest Glen of Naples PUD, a 635+/- acre mixed-use residential and commercial PUD developed with residences, a golf course and a preserve. West: Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), then the I-75/Alligator Alley PUD, a 40.8+/- acre commercial PUD and a developed automobile service station with a C-4 zoning designation, 1 TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 a June 29,2015 Page 5 of 13 {,u � F� ' l� -{ T ��Sler+9�-Y]_A^ �,,z�. F�"�`�^� � -'� J _Y � ^'F a Y- I, •.7a > 7 m �, 4 ' , 1 , 4 ! lixy ,�+s � .,l,�Vt c..+" , „, •. f� , Subject Site A :� , "e' P,, 3,,,,. „ . .. .C-,,,..---- - — K-1..-4t,,... :?:,,'..,,‘lr $,,- ;:iii:-.;,- - . . . ..*I ...' . ',,-'.. i -1 3;1 0 tC1 q krp yii, .. .,,— --,.-- tA TS .2; ,,,ONIM.Wilgiii , — . --.----41..n. -"'" Ct 'f 4 1 j 4., a i ,-j w '' . ', i �.1�1fr"ffi±3., t r I"'•`'' 1= A f Ir` alii� T� Gl i • , r 4 M` Ta qra 99,�.`�... '7••..''` rfi Te�naam 3.i ;,'..,,./. .. .ti,:`t., -K %�. `}.,r.�� 1 ��,� .- . ,.ai r t i is ' p -`7i f , - .�_,_ • _ rii - ` Y!!! _. • -. �-4 ^` f y 3 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series as Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center (IAC) Subdistrict No. 9. Relevant to this petition, the subject property allows a full range of land uses allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers (MUAC),plus industrial uses. The existing Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/DRI is split into two parcels, internally separating land uses. All of Parcel "A"properties are now limited to Commercial uses; Parcel "B"properties allow for both Parcel "A" uses and Light Industrial uses-limited to those with inside storage and warehousing, along with limited inside assembly and manufacturing; "A" Parcels generally comprise the westerly half of the PUD, and"B"Parcels the easterly half. This PUD amendment petition shifts a portion of the internal zoning delineation line that separates two different land use parcels to the west. This shift effectively converts certain commercial properties/lots to allow light industrial uses. The changes proposed to the previously approved Tollgate Commercial Center DRI pertain only to its "Master Development Plan". No other components of the DRI development order relative to Future Land Use Element (FLUE) consistency. The IAC Subdistrict encourages a rezone to be in the form of a planned unit development. Tollgate Commercial Center began as a PUD and is proposed here as a PUD amendment. TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 Page 6 of 13 This PUD amendment expands the area in which light industrial uses are allowed but does not modify the list of uses allowed in the PUD. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Regarding FLUE Policies 7.1 through 7.4, pertaining to access, interconnections, open space and walkable communities — no changes are proposed to access, interconnection or sidewalk provisions, and the PUD must comply with the open space requirements of the LDC. Based upon the above analysis,the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this PUD Amendment within the 5-year planning period and found it consistent with the applicable policies of the transportation element. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Services staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site consists of the 100.23 +1- acre Tollgate Commercial Center which is largely built out. Based upon the above analysis,the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as"Rezone Findings"),which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. No preserves are required on individual parcels as the PUD Master Plan provides a Forested Wetland Preserve adjacent to I-75. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval. fi. TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 t Page 7 of 13 Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Zoning and Land Development Review: As previously stated, this PUD amendment petition shifts a portion of the internal zoning delineation line that separates two different land use parcels to the west. This shift converts 8.93 +/-acres of commercial properties/lots to allow light industrial uses. The changes proposed only affect the Master Plan. The subject 8.93 +/- acre property's access from Tollhouse Boulevard and Bush Boulevard will remain unchanged. Landscape and buffering standards also remain unchanged. As depicted in the surrounding land use section of this staff report and on the Location Map, the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD is adjacent to 1-75 and then White Lake Industrial Park PUD to the north, to a Florida Highway Patrol station to the west, to Beck Boulevard (S.R. 84) and then Forest Glen of Naples PUD to the south, and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and then I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to the west. No deviations are being sought as part of this PUD amendment petition. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. it The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. This amendment will not affect the existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern will remain the same. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Not applicable. The district boundary is existing and established. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 Page 8 of 13 3 The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 1 The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to shift a portion of the internal zoning delineation line that separates commercial land uses from commercial/light industrial land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The overall intensity of commercial and light industrial land uses allowed by the current PUD is not exceeded in the proposed PUD amendment. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change will not adversely impact the living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan(SDP)review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 r Page 9 of 13 fi Most of the property surrounding the subject site is partially developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision ti process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the ro osed change will constitute a P P g grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development will comply with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Not applicable. The proposed uses are already permitted at the subject site. } 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 Page 10 of 13 is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The currently approved type and pattern of development was determined to be suitable when the subject PUD was previously approved. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property and roadway access to the subject site. Additionally, the development will be required to site development plan approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The currently approved development, landscaping and buffering standards were determined to be compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself when the PUD } TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 Page 11 of 13 { 3 6 was approved. Staff believes that this amendment will not change the project's internal or external compatibility. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The existing open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan(SDP)review. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. This proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely impact the previous BCC finding that the subject property and surrounding areas can accommodate expansion. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Not applicable. As previously stated, the only change is to shift a portion of the internal zoning delineation line that separates commercial land uses from commercial/light industrial land uses. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on June 4, 2015. For further information,please see Attachment: NIM Summary. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA-PL20150000281, Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,revised on June 25,2015. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-PL20150000281, Tollgate Commercial Center PUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 29,2015 Page 12 of 13 PREPARED BY: (a " 6ute 12QS NANCY 'D 4 H, AICP, PLA DATE PRINCIP ' L L' R ZONING ISION REVIEWED BY: 7-?. tb /°-reA*.,------ 3°0 Re_ Z3„ Zoir i RAYMO i V. BELLO ,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONINI DIVISION . -- , `�- Ca- 3`i - I j_ MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: J S FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 7-1—I 5 Nle CASALANGUIDA;- DUTY COUNTY MANANGER DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance 92-10 Attachment C: NIM Summary Attachment D: Tollgate Commercial Center Phase Three Plat TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD,PUDA-PL20150000281 June 19,2015 Page 13 of 13 • • � co ,‘23480 ORDINANCE 92-X�?. !• - 1, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER! ,f r 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND i M 1 t, 4 DPMDE IINES N COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE i e!•. z UNINCORPORATED AREA OP COLLIER COUNTY, ; t m 1 0 � FLORIDA AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING e f ATLAS MAPS) NUMBERED 963536 AND 060102; M BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF ,� pd. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR . 1 MIXED BUSINESS AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES • , ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST • 1 CORNER OF I-75 AND C.R. 951, BOUNDED ON T • HE SOUTH BY C.R. 84, IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND • SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING I OF 100.23± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 84-6, AS ii AMENDED, THE FORMER TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE . . . DATE. • t.. 4. WHEREAS, William R. Vines of Vines i Associates, Inc., • representing Ashley M. Papineau, Partner, of Tollgate • Commercial Center, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the r • herein described real property; • • � NOW THEREFORE BE IT•ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY • COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SECTION ONE! The Zoning Classification of the herein described real ` property located in Section 35, Township 49 .South. Range 26 � East, and Section 2, Township 50 South, Range East,� ,eS. . p , nge 26 East Collier county, Florida, is changed from "PUD" to "PUD" ;t'. • Planned Unit Development in accordance with the PUD Document, Nk....: attached hereto as Exhibit "A" which is incorporated herein !' ' • and by reference made part hereof. The Official Zoning Atlas s Map(s) Numbered 963536 and 060102, as described in Ordinance . 1 r..=,•• Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, are -• hereby amended accordingly. 1 it • ; , n. i • a:-.• nor (51 02 • Attachment B 1 I - I I ( : SECTION Two: .. 'x.• Ordinance Number 84-6, as amended, known as the Tollgate ti.' Commercial Center PUD, adopted on January 14, 1984 by the II Board of County Commissioners of collier county is hereby 4 repealed in its entirety. Said Ordinance is attached hereto . 1 q.Y' as Exhibit "B". 1 •, pECTION THREE: ii` This Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt of 1 - x;c notice from the Secretary of State that this Ordinance has ��' been filed with the Secretary of State. rr; gip: PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County f 0,'7;,;` Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this //hbf.day of :- ", 1992. 1 r;... • ,�..501 A U . w U t.;. .• ATF.. . l BOARD Of COUNTY COOISsioNERS a:; •./ ANES c1 KPli,Es, Clerk COLLIER C• FLORIDA '..*.! V, j.'., 1444. '• vyl ) �': ^' G BY: A Ai II t- r+�� t�, . `SA ' « MAN App �� as4tO form and ' t 'legal sufficiency ■ This etdl nan to filed with ih the. • s7S en,j ' oo f O,f Ass tar t County Attorney `t'! end od new - T- „..„•,•.v.",+, POD-83-18(9) .ORDINANCE day nb/5412 _, • • « ;+• •... - :: • , : :,t•. Boor f51PAGE 03 • • :•; -2- • i. • Ell • .• • ..,.. • ,• cf•- • 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER • • • PREPARED 11Y3 WILLIAM R. VINES, MCP VINES, & ASSOCIATES, INC. 715 TENTH STREET SOUTH • NAPLES, FLORIDA 32940 • (813) 262.-4164 • DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC • DATE APPROVED BY BCC 2/13/92 ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-10 ?•, AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL • • Int 1151pAct 04 3., . ,•1 • • , . ___. imume VIIIMM , A: i . 1:1 . I: '.!,.I / . 1 ;h ;.01 i '.. numozcannun 1 1 . . 1 i'4'........ !I • c•' ') •11,0 ZACES ]I: ! '.. .... ..0 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE . • fl P t.... STATEMENT or COMPLIANCE /if 11 -'1.•• SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP i DESCRIPTION 1-1 r+1.,! 'clf, SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REIWIRMENTS 2-1 , 1 ... ,, .,- 1 t' SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN FOR PARCEL "A0 3-1 J SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOR 4-1 ■I 15'. PARCEL SIft L7... . tk SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONMITMNTS 5-1 11 ii P • 41 -,..r,` . ., -. . • 1 1 ;-.■:, .- . ' . * . ... i . sop f151pAu 05 .._. ll ,t• I •••,,,,,,,::%,. • • ' 71■.'-.— . i'•it; !'t I. • . , . , . , ' -------- ..< , . i., .,.'.f 4 l'• ' ) ,... , ','''''.1.,••• . 1 1 i t .::: 111112...121-1111111322LANIL..2111k11 1 6- 1 .:. 1 I u; I EXIIXBIT A PUD Master Plan 6-1 - •;,'. . TABLE I Schedule of Development 2-2 v . • 1 .1.' . I. • • • - • .' 'I ' •1• • , 'ets.'‘O" • t•, ' ! I••',, • • , (.1, :-• . l' • -.,c., I I • 1 .... .••..cg, . . , A ' . • I • ,,...,. ! • '' : ' . . • 14481 (151,&a 06 -IL- , ,. .', ".ii.• , . -•.,, e r • , 1 1 "4.1• ‘, • ' . , • —.. .. I wR y., y;F . 6 yy. I� i J .YY +1 !: <<� STATEMENT OP coMPLIANCI The development of approximately 300.23 acres of property in d collier County and within an Interchange Activity Center, as a • a Planned Unit Development to be known as Tollgate Commercial � '. Center, will be in compliance with the planning goals and y objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan and it's provisions for Interchange Activity Center development. This compliance includes: Activity Center Project 1. The subject property is located in an area identified as an j Interchange Activity center in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan for Collier County. 2. Interstate Activity Centers are the preferred locations for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. 3. The subject tract is located on the northeast corner of the - :.s: intersection of CR-951 and CR-e4. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of • commercial/industrial activities. 4. The project is in compliance with all applicable County regulations. In addition, the project complies with the Growth Management Plan with the adoption of the Plan amendment which allows for specifically approved heavy business/light industrial uses to be developed in designated interstate activity centers. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. ys. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the iy,> internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use UP . buffers, and the proposed development standards contained herein. , 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and • naturalized open features which serve as project amenities. 8. The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan and the existing PUD • document as approved. In addition, the project shall be developed in effect in accordance wlth of aFinal Collier County l pmit application. 9. Bind the owner's successor in title to any commitments made under in this document. r5i►af 0? . . f t } .:. . fl ji SECTION I I ,1 ''% PROPERTY OWNERSEIP AND DXSCRIPTION '1 1.1 2.2=11 ) . The purpose of this eection•is to set forth the location and ` ownership of the property, and to describe the existing l' conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the J }, project name of Tollgate Commercial Center. it i: 1.2 NGAL DWRIPTION j jl • Commencing at the southeast corner of Section •15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the east line of said Section 35 North ! .:: 1'-56'-55" West 200.14 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); thence along said north right-of-way line, North 89'-45'-01" West ]31.23 feet to a point of intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (1-75), and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator 89•_45'_01" five 2) South 89'-56'-16" West 1547.43 feet; 3) North 80'-43'-58" West 709.38 feet; • 4) North 39'-52'-42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 10'-24'-33" West 209.94 feet to a point on the East Limited Access, right-of-way line of Stets Road 93 (I-75); • thence continua along said Limited Access, right-of-way line ii.; of State 93 (I-75) on.the following nine courses: ' 1) North 3'-19'-52" East 285.34 feet; 2) North 23'-37'-28" East 149.83 feet; 3) North 64'-12'-39" East 149.83 feet; ' 4) North 86'-37'-01" East 778.54 feet; 5) South 87'-55'-12" East 318.82 feat; 6) South 78'-44'-38" East 318.32 feet; 7) South 74'-09'-17" East 1199.30 feat; • • 8) South 73'-00'-33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 fast along the arc of a circular • curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of • 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 75'-35'-07" East 233.67 feet to• the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; j` 1-1 • ,v 6001 Ohba 05 ,n i f . V, Ili UM UN a' IlV. : I i v�.. being a part of south 1/2, Section 35, Township 49 South, - Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; '� ;: subject to easements and restrictions of record; 1 ` . -: containing 69.40 acres of land sore or less; i ,* bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road 93 (I-75). `Y��. ALSO INCLUDING TEE FOLLOWING 9 . 1 Description of part of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range k_ . 26 East, and part of Section 2, Township SO South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida f. COMXENCE at an iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said Section 2; thence North 89. 45' 01" West, 337.83 feet along 47. the North line of said Section 2 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; �. thence South 00' 02' 19" Nast, 59.98 feet; thence south 89• 57' 41" West, 2,300.70 feet; thence on a course traversing from said section 35, South 89. 56' 02" West, 2,445.74 feet; thence North 45. 46' 16" West, 71.58 feet; thence North 010 28' 34" West, 705.25 feet to the Easterly Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South 100 24' 33" East, 209.94 feet; thence South 39. 52' 42" East, 209.91 feet; thence South 80. 43' 58" East, 709.38 feet; thence North 89. 56' 16" East, 1,547.43 feet; thence South 89. 45' 01" East, 2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 93 (03175-2409); thence South 00. 02' d 19" East, 200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.• � ' Less and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. 11•:.. Containing 30.835 acres, more or less. r: The entire project area is 100.235 acres. i. Number of acres devoted to various categories of lend use Development area 70.72 Water Management area 17.84 '.•, Road Right-of-Way 6.7 +'" • F.P.L. Easement 4.98 . GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Tollgate Commercial Center is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate I-78/CR-951 interchange, approximately five miles east of the Naples Airport at the 'y. eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84). yk ' 1-2 IOW n51rg 09 'r I :,1, i ' f I ' 1I 1 NM ME sir s ;,,: .1 t r: tiIj f.-.� Rt.. I.iii �j zL^ 1 is it } ,7.• 1.3 pROPERTY OWNERSHIP lil . ' ,v;, The subject property is currently owned by and under the unified control of Tollgate Commercial Center, a Florida r; General Partnership. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OP PROPERTY rise 1 a't ; i= A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is II, ` designated Interstate Activity Canter.on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 4 B. CURRENT ZONINGt The project site is currently zoned i PCD. 1 ?. • C. EXISTING LAND USE:, At the present time the site is t;;-. unoccupied except for a 104 roam motel. e . I ,I•!. D. ADJACENT LAND 1158: The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The northwest and southwest corners of CR 951 and SR 54 are presently used as I ... gasoline service stations. y ., The properties north of the I-75 right-of-way and the -•$, properties south of CR 64 are vacant. 7A1:: 1.1 yEYSICAL DESCRIPTION ::: The elevation of the project site varies from 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet. Tollgate Commercial Center lies within Zone X as identified on the Federal Flood Insurance Rats Map. Zone X is identified as those areas between limits of the 10O-year I flood and 500-year flood. This means that no development will be occurring within the 100-year flood prone area. • A. SOILS: There are - three types of soil cover on the V. project site. They are Arsell fine sands, Ran fine `` sands and Pompano fine sands. The distribution of these • soil types is shown in Map N ! c• B. VEGETATIVE COVER: A breakdown of the vegetative cover i I _ of the project area is as follows: . •.Y . II ; •':till 1-3 • i, r+: WM r51 PUt 10 . V n„ III i :. i i •'. 1 ': VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE 1 Pineland 1.00 1 saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia 4.21 : Transitional Zone/Cypress 29.40 Functional Wetland 9.40 ?' Cabbage Palm Heads 0.30 Improved/Platted 30.67 Cleared/Filled Unpiatted Former R/W 21.66 V F.P.L. R/W 2.60 t. Total 100.24 '1' There are no unique features of the vegetation. All species and associations are ',typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods of level sandy areas of Collier County. !+ C. }41LDLIFE: Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks '" nests, etc. consisted of the representative species, such as raccoon, snakes and wading birds, which normally lI, occur in an habitat such as the Tollgate Commercial Center site. A. No endangered or threatened species were observed on the . site.site. 1 D. HISTORICAL OR _ARCHAEOLOGICAL =TESL John Marianit, '': Field Representative of the S.W. Florida Archaeological t•' Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist on the tract. 0. E. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT: Waste water treatment is being provided by the Collier County Sewage Treatment System. ?� Temporary on-site wastewater treatment facilities for .y which all necessary permits have been granted may be 3c installed during any period of time in which sewage treatment service is not available from Collier County. ± F. WATER MANAGEMENT: The Water Management Plan provides 'F 4' for site runoff transport to a system of hardwood forest, marsh, and open water ponds. The Water it Management Plan is designed to pest STWND and County criteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be designed for the 25-year 3-day rainfall event. The finished floor elevations will be established by the 100 ,, year-zero discharge design event. 1 i 1-4 100r fl51ntif i1 1 't'h I 1' ' . III 1 1 • • Ir • • } Y ' • • le,.. j` f: .•. � ' III , j ! i r,. . C. MATER SUPPLY: Potable water is being supplied by the • i • collier County Water-Sewer District. Non-potable water utilized for landscape irrigation and 4 •� -`, other non-human consumptive uses will be procured from on-site wells, or from the County treated sewage effluent distribution system. • H. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste is being disposed of at the Collier county Sanitary Landfill. Collection is provided by Waste Management of Collier County, a franchised hauler. • ':' I. ELBCTRTCTTT Electricity is being q provided by the ,r Florida Power & Light Company, Mc. J. POLICE PROTECTION: Police protection is provided by the Collier County Sheriff Department. • ;l ',.*• K. 7IRE PROTECTION:, Fire protection is provided by the dF; • Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. • • ? .. .,• • i• L. TELEPHONE: Telephone service is provided by United ' Telephone of Florida. '1 M••:. J..'«;. • r= 0. soar 051 r+GE 12 j! i, iy` s r': r ; I' 1< •• • 'jl • • r • . I , • • i 4 I . 1 - I. , L 1 1. i•; I iY., 1 i SECTION II 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQOXREILENTB i 3e '" PO 2.1 P R E 1I r. The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to },,, ap plicable County ordinances; the respective land uses of the I tracts included in the project, as well as other project c: relationships. 2.2 GENERAL II r• A. Regulations, requirements and references for development ;li . of Tollgate Commercial Center shall be in accordance with the contents of this document. Where these { regulations fail to provide development standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the j Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. 1 1 ,,v• i ; B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in I Collier County Land Development Code.• C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of . I Tollgate Commercial Center shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD ?. cite may be developed. D. Unless specifically waived through variance or waiver provisions within this POD, those applicable regulations ; not otherwise provided for in this POD remain in full 1 force and effect. E. Each tract, as identified on the Master Plan, shall sII 7 require the submittal, review and subsequent approval of I I' 4; • a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of a Final ,ti,• Local Development Order. 2.3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAIT AND PROBED LAND A. The .project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by II� Exhibit KA^, PUD Master Development Plan. I I ," i. +,. 2-1 i ,,,, .' fl51 t i y <,. I ;J . • � u; I .:Ii 11111 E M 1 1 . t I 1 .i • cs..•'' SCHEDULE O!_DEYELOPMEE? I 1 .•" a •' 1 + , project development is underway and will continue to build- ,w out. ' 1 The following schedule indicates the anticipated start and =4`:, completion dates for the various project development Phases. I;• Phase boundaries are indicated on the Master Development . I• Plan. I. TABLE t • % OF . . , l ' PHASE ACREAGE SIT START COMPLET$ • • ' �F' I 54.51 04.4 1956 1993 • ... II 26.44 26.4 1992 1995 • III •_19.29 -19.2 1993 1996 • • TOTALS 100.24 100.0 ,�1.,,• A. Table I is a schedule of Development with the !:i•' approximate acreage of the total project indicated. The `;. arrangement of these land areas are shown on the POD 4..... Master Development Plan (Exhibit •AN). The Master Development •Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. Design criteria and layout is :i=1 illustrative on the master Development Plan and other I 5., exhibits supporting this project. It shall be understood that these exhibits are to remain flexible so the final design may satisfy development objectives • and be consistent with the project development, as set forth in this document. t • • Minor changes to the master plan shall be subject to the ' . provisions of Section 2.7.3.5, Division 2.7, Article 2 I' ti of the Collier County Land Development Coda. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual • requirements for drive patterns, parking layout and • requirements, and development parcel size and lb::.. configuration. s now Mirka 14 . • • • • i`; ':. • 2-2 ' rat: i. . -y1�� i T M , 1 ! N:,^ t r jv. it �` . . D. In addition to the various areas and specific items C. shown in Exhibit "A", such utility and other easements ip 1.' as are necessary shall be established within or along the various tracts. ' IL •kl.. 2.4. $SATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL RE4cIRENENTa I1 V■ A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, for all or pert %,t; of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements y.• shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County '" governmental agency to insure compliance with the POD Master Plan, and the Collier County Land Development � .' code. • j•: B. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan, constitutes '� the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or `, concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Y'<. Plat, if applicable, shall be submitted for any area to be subdivided. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the 1 collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. '• C. The development of any tract or parcel contemplating fee simple ownership of land shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in 1 conformance with requirements of Division 3.2, Article 3, of the Collier county Land Development Code, prior to 1. the submittal of construction' plans and plat for any portion of the tract or parcel. • , D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of i . infrastructural • improvements regarding any dedications ' and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common J?' facilities. E. The developer or subsequent owner of any platted parcel • or platted tract shall, prior to application for a j; f. building permit, submit a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Preliminary Subdivision Plat for that tract or parcel to II the Development Services Department for approval for applicable development subject to the provisions of s Division 3.3, Article 3 of the Collier County Land • . ,,, Development Code. li �,, . • 2-3 J�{%?c n5 .. 15 *r.= ` -,.. •." Y . . 1 «-. - .. i i MN MIN NIB . j I ,II t ti 1 [ . ` 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT 0 POD MAS'j'EA PLAN i;.• Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section • I,I 2.7.3.5.1, Division 2.7, Article 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Jr.-' s. 2.6 ,IMITATIONS OP PLANNED ONST DEV1141112221V AIPROVAIg ,I i ;f As provided for within Section 2.7.3.4, Division 2.7, Article i' 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 1 ' 2.7 POLLING PLACER • As provided for in Section 9.2.8.3.14, Division 3.2, Article 3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. a' v" r' ` 2.0 717D MONITORINQ : *,: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6, Division 2.7, Article 2 of the Collier ur:'• County Land Development Code. s II I I''}$-r 'j . i - R Ii l ,''' . a • Boot ra ncs is I, `' 2-4 • III I ' MO 11111 Mt I I ,'Z40.. r,= j }.rf t !l i II ' f;, SECTIO11 III t �'� j t'- . I CoMMEACIAL AREAS PLAN E The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas so designated on Exhibit "A", as "A" Parcels. I, • 4 3.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL "A" I; It is the intent of this document that "A" designated development parcels be used for commercial purposes which serve the motoring public using Interstate I-73 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an areawide nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokalea urban areas. • r.. Further it is the intent of this document that "A" designated development parcels shell be used in accordance with all current Federal, state and County regulations in effect at ,. ;. the time final local development orders are issued except as t: • specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County if Hoard of County'Commissioners. w'. 3.3 um PERMITTED No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: { ` 'j ;4. A. principal Uses. • I' No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be j,. erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part for other than the followings (a) Automobile service stations including engine tune- ups and minor repairs, and car wash facilities which are accessory uses. ' i, (b) Banks and financial institutions, business and professional offices. I �I (0) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. i (d) Convention and exhibition halls. ; Y 3-i >;. n5i►*Gt 17 fit`}. t y'' •,' I I I I • 1 • • 1. q' � ; (e) Department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops 1H a ' and dry goods stores. ' • (f) Electronic games and furniture sales. • 1i �,.... (g) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. ! " f� (h) Motels; hotels• and other transient lodging . ,i .•i facilities. '. (i) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food Ii restaurants. ", (j) Shopping centers. r:I` ° (k) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. I 1 s,.• (1) Supermarkets. I (m) variety stores; vehicle rental-automobile and ` U-haul type of vehicles and equipment including .•' outside display; veterinary offices and clinics; no !, V`' outside kenneling. 'i .': (n) Any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and ` i' • which the Planning Iapementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. i, -•. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures . . (a) Any accessory Sees or structures customarily i . associated with the permitted principal uses and II; • structures. 1i' (b) Caretakers residence. 11: C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures 1 ' '?i (a) Car wash facilities which are principal uses. I'' 16,' (b) Permitted uses with less than one thousand (1,000) �' square feet gross floor area in the i ;.•: pr ncipal i structure. L; .1. 3.a DsaelenmSpi, standards • I, .• (2) Minimum Lot Areas Ten thousand (10,000) square feat. . :1. (2) Minimum Lot Widths One hundred (300) feet as measured 1 at the front building setback line. ,t, 3-2 -• 'C. • Boor I rues Q1.tot 1)5 H ,.. i • i , 1 1 Il I iti 9 L • h (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: 11 z ) (a) Front Yard - Twenty-five (25) feat plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feat of building height over fj fifty (50) fest. t.. (b) Side yard - None or a minimum of five (5) feet with 1 unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for .1 L�,�` non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) fest for motels, hotels and transient lodging facilities :M;• plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building 1. height over fifty (50) feet. 1. 11 �" (c) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal • '' water line of any artificially created body of )yy `: water, excluding observation decks, bridges and � walkways. . ,. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. Y;P. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures One thousand 1 t (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other • !I f. permitted areas for which the principal activity does y. t., not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum '� floor area. , Ili ,; , (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging r ' • facilities. • •.'• ::.'A (7) Distance Between Principal Structures on same site: III one-half the sum of the heights. ii (8) Signs: As required by Division 2.5 of the Land II; • • Development Cods. ,. (9) Minimum Ott-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As . required by Division 2.3 of the II' Collier County Land Development Code. 1 (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: As required by the Collier County Land Development Code. i (11) Outside Merchandise Storage and Displaying: Unless , • specifically authorised by this PUD document or by an approved Sits Development Plan, outside storage or j; display of merchandise is prohibited. i 3-3 nog n5lrwcc 19 t'.. HO., . . . , 40v , I gfg MI 11111 11111 i t 1 i tN•' 1 i . ; ' 1 is a SZCTIoN IV t1 1 i COMMERCIAL/LXGET IBDOSTRIAL USES ' e'* 4.1 PIIR4oS8 . . ,pi ' i �;' The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of ' .: commercial/Industrial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as "B" Parcels. r 4.2 pEVELOPMENT MINT FOR PARCEL "B" d::-' It is the intent of this document that "B" designated 1•:' development parcels by for both "A• designated nated uses and ..-: for the sale, service, transportation, storage and ' ^`' distribution of goods and service to the traveling public an I-75 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via • the access road systems. i `• A major function of these parcels is to serve as a focal 'I point for the arrival of goods from other points of the .'.. region and country and then be processed for distribution to ': the local trade market. • 1. rte. 1. It is intended that inside storage and warehousing along with limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building f ;�.. and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, noise or vibration be permitted. 4f, Further, it is the intent of this document that ■B" r4: designated Parcels be used in accordance with all of the current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at ;/`.• the time final local development orders are issued except as b specified otherwise in this document or is may be approved • otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. $f' 4.3 USES PERMITTED • x• Ito building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part • r"t of other than the followings i k A. principal yaws . � '. de (a) signatedidevelopment parcel.. permitted on "A" '` (b) Assembly operations in'an enclosed building. -i IOU 051►: 20 I I• i r;;; 11111 MI NO : 1 I 1 (c) Building supplies and contractors storage facilities; bulk storage yards not including junk I "<< or salvage yards. I !' (d) car wash, communications service and equipment repair. (a) Freight movers and storage. Ii (f) Laboratories, research, design and testing; I ; laundries; lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing +e. (include food processing but not abatoir; packaging ;' or fabricating in a completely enclosed building). t I; t ' (g) Miscellaneous uses such as express office; ' telephone exchange; motor or bus or truck or other r:.. transportation terminal and related uses; I. r±. motorcycle sales, service and repair; museums and. ,' tourist attractions. g.. :. (h) New and used car sales, service and repair y;. including outside display. I (i) Offices, general purpose. t N;; (j) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing i establishments and similar uses. •. ` (k) Any other commercial or professional use which is ) comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and j which the Planning Implementation Director I determines to be compatible in the district. I': 4: B. permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: is (1) Any accessory use or structure customarily 11 { associated with the permitted uses and structures. 1I -"• ' C. permitted Provisional Uses and Structuresi t. (1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business - one (1) per business. . Ii ` (2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet gross floor areas in the principal building. 1 ft, I .•F;:' .' '. 4-2 t. y,• '4 .. %. fl51t 21 F ` \ l • i • • I .„ d .11 t." +; { ` i . 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I ,j ; '�,. (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. ��. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured ( ii at the front building setback line. 4�. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: 1 (a) Front Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. . k, (b) Side Yard - Non, or a minimum of five (5) feet with .el, unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for tt. non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for /P hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities �.. plus one (1) toot for each two (2) fest of building height over fifty (50) feet. Attached residences shall be treated as non-residential. (a) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. f..; (d) Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feat from the normal 4;� level of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. ,, (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. .'. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures one thousand gi- (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor, except .. that gasoline service stations and other permitted uses • for which the principal activity does not occur in a ' structure shall not require a minimum floor area. 1• . (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre f of land for hotel, motel and transient lodging facilities. it . (7) Distance Between Structures: One-half the sun of the tti heights. ! (8) Signs: As required by Division 2.5 of the Collier t:, County Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and 0!!-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Division 2.3 of the ►�: Collier County Land Development Code. . ,.',:: 4-3 :<. wet Minn 22 , i .- NM MINI 111111P ' r i'l .,* , iI A 0 1 yr (10) Minimum landscaping Requiresentes As required by the I 14i ' Collier County Land Development Code. , k(" • (11) Merchandise Storage and Displays Unless specifically Itt authorized by this PUD document or an approved Site Development Plan, or of a nature which is permitted �' generally, outside storage or diplay of merchandise is {'::' prohibited. 1.�,C"' • �I: 1c YSfyi-. . °:‘%l`. >i • i r . • � >;� . -`. ' ' 111011 x'51, 2 ■' e .1 lk .2. t {+1 4�j • • 7 i LP ,_• , . ' • 1 N i is BECTYOw V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS • E.1 PUAPOBE ., .. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for i ' the development of the project. t''', 5.2 POD, MASTER P A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary -� ' development plan. ;s,.; ' B. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master ii'- Development Plan shall be interpreted as preliminary and , ::• understood to be flexible so that the final design may ' best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable • requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. • C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. tk D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of .e landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all• improved facilities, and location and treatment of i.::. • • buffer areas. fit, 5.3 nxmo ' w A. The developer and all subsequent petitioners are hereby 0.1- ' placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codas in • effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plats, e Site Development Plans and any other application that . will result in the issuance of a final or final local i' development order. t., a. The project shall be platted in accordance with the Collier County subdivision Code to define the ' '� . - right-of-way, tracts, and water ,management areas as shown on the master plan. 1 jt 5- . 5- . 100c I15ir i 24 1 o . 1111 1111 ON r• . • o , % «• I I • 1.i: rt - 1 : ':' -:, C. Landscaping shall not be placed within the water I1 ...`• management areas unless specifically approved by project Yr • Review Services. 1 !.. H; D. Provide a 20 ft. landscape buffer along the entire western and southern property line. This buffer will be in a separate platted tract (not within a right-of-way) `: for all buffer required between on-site right-of-way and off-site County right-of-way. Suffers may be included within the platted lots that directly backup to an 1• • off-site County right-of-way, provided the buffer is not located within any utility or drainage easement. When the buffer exists on a platted lot, it shall not be ! 1 I - included in the rear- yard setback measurement for such I lot(s). All landscape buffers required by Division 3.2 of the Land Development Code must be designed, bonded, permitted and constructed as part of the subdivision improvements for the project. S. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during it's permit review process, require a natural vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation tract, the buffer shall not be located within the boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the r ! south Florida Water Management District. It shall be created as a separate platted tract or as a 'buffer easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to 'I include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract . shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and i maintenance responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be • created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes. • F. Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.4.16.6 - Dead end f.t' streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 fest: Waived to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. Ie. G. Land Development Regulations, Section 3.2.8.4.16 - All f, local streets within commercial subdivision shall be designed according to the typical section for collector is streets contained in the County Standards. Waived subject to right-of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the pavements structure to meet collector standards. • • f4'•' 5-2 $: . l��. r51NGt 25 1 NM 11111 1111/ I ° • s; i r i ;:.`+ H. Land Development Coda, Section 3.7.8.4.7 - Easements: j Utility easements will be provided as needed with F `NO Collier County utility easements (C.U.E.) at a minimum ' +fit; of fifteen (15) feet. • N: I. Land Development Code, Section, 3.2.8.3.17 - Sidewalks: , . Hot waived since existing phase already has sidewalks and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrians f . K access purposes. { 5.4 UTILITIES 1 fi 'N: A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, 1 conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with. f '.; Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76, as amended, and 1 j ti other applicable County rules and regulations. I B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. Tha on-site water distribution system to serve the r. project must be connected to the existing water main on V- Tollhouse Drive and/or CR-84 rights-of-way consistent ,e. with the main sizing requirements specified in the =` County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the �• project. During design of these facilities, dead end mains shall be eliminated by looping the internal pipeline network. :*,° D. The utility construction documents for the project's 'w`• sewerage system shall be p rw4 Y prepared so that all sewage ':t flowing to the County's master pump station is ■ 1 el 7 : j a.r ,I • tit •. !I • T.N, 1, . `c I.i •4 = 4 , ,,n. transmitted by one (1) main on-sit. pump station. Due to the design and configuration of the master pump ill station, flow by gravity into the station will not be 'y% possible. The Developer's Engineer shall west with the ' , ': County staff prior ,to commencing 3 ° construction drawings, so that all aspects of the sewerage system design can be coordinated with the County's sewer master•plan. h; E. The existing off-site water facilities of the District 1, A.. must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project and reinforced as requred, . if necessary, , 1 ;_ consistent with the County'. Water Master Plan to insure that the District'• water system can hydraulically■' ' A. provide a sufficient quantity of water to meet the anticipated demands of the project and the District's • existing committed capacity. II F. The existing off-site sewage transmission facilities of the district must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to ►. serve this project improved as required outside the projects boundary to provide adequate capacity to . transport the additional wastewater generated without adverse impact to the existing,transmission facilities. I; 5.5 laymuggsignua T AN!? 1'Na NxmR21te f A. Detailed paving, grading, site , drainage and utility '' plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued finless k ' and until approval of the proposed construction in x • accordance with' the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. S. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the I requirements of Collier County Right-of-Nay Ordinance f'•. No. 82-91. , '�' C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed I lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier 1.'T, county Land Development Code. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DER and ACOS i 3' permits. D. Each building site will be 1 ` �- 1/2 inch of required to provide a minimum / ry pre-treatment on site, unless otherwise 46 waived by South Florida Water Management District. il , '',,I .:',..: . • S-4 H . ,: =: . tear P51MCE 27 L• ,, � "'a. . j • i • I . - M1 ME ..t *r1 5.6 ___B M �, .. A. All jurisdictional wetlands and mitigation areas on-site shall be designated a■ conservation/preserve tracts or ! easements on all construction plans and shall be Ali ,`...1 recorded on the plat with protective covenants similar to or as per chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. I� B. in the case of mitigation off-site any purchase must be within the conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or 1 the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed Lands (CREW) or other areas approved for mitigation by the Florida I . Department of Environmental Regulation. The ultimate transfer of dead(s) of land(s) to Florida Department of li Natural Resources, Division of State Lands must occur ', prior to final construction plan/plat approvals. I • 1;:.-tn C. Control structures on-site shall be constructed in accordance with State and Federal permits. Il I; 4 s.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall •+', be submitted to Project Review Services for review.. No '"'' construction permits shall be issued unless and until. approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project ,Review ',.' Services. , B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be t,:• • subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of •, the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. ' C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with'Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DER and ACOE' i' permits. i D. A copy of SFWMD Permit or Early Work Permit is required prior to construction plan approval. .i.:' E. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum 1/2 inch of dry pre-treatment on site, unless otherwise i4 . waived by South Florida Water Management District. 1 5-5 4y •I {, same llama 28 It t II I 1 M 1 ti. ! .4 t . I II nt." S.* TRANBPORTATIOB I 1 "•;x) A. The final location of major access points along Davis f £ :.• Boulevard shall be•determ ned during the IMP process. I �f' Such major access points shall provide primary access II I t and internal road circulation and shall typically . y.k, include turn lane improvements based on projected traffic conditions. Secondary access points between Davis Boulevard and individual parcels shall be prohibited unless approved consistent with Ordinance 82-91 as may be amended and with the following access control criteria: '`s 1. safety • - 2. proper geometric eometric design f-$ 3. effects the capaciy of Davis Boulevard • 4. traffic volumes using the proposed access point I'' +u!:.-.• 5. other roadways providing access to the site Y!.:• 6. the combined effect of access to any and all •• tracts both within this PUD and adjacent PUD's 1 •; 7. spacing of access points f: Collier County reserves the right to close any approved "' secondary access to and from Davis Boulevard should it I� .,.. at any time be found to create a traffic hazard or to f adversely affect the capacity or level of service of �. that roadway. Ili ;,•', B. The road impact fee shall be as set forth in Ordinance i 1 85-5S as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by 1. the Board of County Commissioners. ' C. Access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee •3r ' credits and shall be in place before any certificates of L • .r occupancy are issued. D. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the 11 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by 1 Chapter 316.0747 Florida Statutes. . • I • : - TOLLGATE PUD DOCUMENT/md• 11io PIM 28 •. . •*" 5-6 . Y . • ' F. • • ■ 1 s e: ! 1 4 } n 0-. it el < o r,, �i , x g ,fit I H " ' tj I v z I ' -. Ai •4Z---.7%) .' 141-1'4 a g PRASE 1 f.1 " I I Wit E 1 1: �`•.ua I•fir ;. 4. "1 I ME E.pg 44a CZ 2 Tor. Q+ .oQ? ; d p" .. C. e4 I uruiTl I 1 •. I MOM V/06 YMoen Mt MOM 100 Mq WW1 76 MIMI 670 MU R 11 14 I Mt 0R 16 061E MO MWA 101111 111010111 NM 1 1 1 , I N. * •w .,,r�i';•... •.4 •..t•;Y•1•MfSt' lil •� . .�...t. •IT1 M L /. %owa7 1384 . J 1 6 ;'.: CDD/PLAN 1. 3 "Y 3: r / L (e:".14/.......... ....".""'"°. ri CO. rle ...; ORDINANCE 84. 6 . -' AN ORDINANCE AMEND/NR ORDINANCE Sz-z THE COB- PREHEN52V8 ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNIkCOR- POUTED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SY AMENDINC THE ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 49-26-7 BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE REREIN DESCRIBED REAL'PROPERTY FROM A-2 TO "PUB" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 49,4 ACRES TO COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TOURIST USES IN THE `ti. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 33, TCONSRIP 49 S., I ;•. RANCE 26 E; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE: 1„ WHEREAS, Neno J. .Spagna, petitioned the Board of County 'f�' '•'•' Commissioners to change the Zoning Classification of the herein { ?F"4.1• descrlbed.real property: 1 yi,•rU,••• NOW, THEREFORE RE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County ;, ' ' Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, SECTION One ' The Zoning Classification of the herein described real property : •:. located in Section 35, Township 49 E, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida is .changed from A-2 to "PUB" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the PUD document attached hereto as Exhibit "A" which is •1 ). , incorporated'herein end by reference made part hereof. The Official Zoning Atlas Nap Number, Number 49-26-7. as described in Ordinance 82-2, is • •i ', %; hereby amended accordingly. • (see attached) Soar ,5j,► 31 I ; ti' m M i +1 t.:+ w = c3 I. • ; 'gig`• EXHIBIT ."8" { �y��if t} ': r • .. . y Nom. ::• 1 ' , .. .. . .. . . , .III !I1. 4'. - • hi 1 • I , . ),,4 . • 4EXErIED ;g 1 It ' 'I.'; .('' '1 MI 11 pl • i I • , i., • ° - 1 ... • •.i SECTION TWOI lit I, I This Ordinance Alan beans effective upon receipt of notice 111 II . that is he. been filed with the Secretary of State. 'It i .... A HI *+.''.. , • DATE: January 17, 1984 ' MAU OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 03111151. calm, FLORIDA l' ,. . . ,,., ATTESTS BY s 471-Zifis_.• -,-97.4."..------- !,.. • N(4,•, •WILLIAM .7 REACAN,/CL2 • ONTO c..nowv; CHAIRMAN - t I •Na:. 1 , ? T )• 4 ....if 0 r grs rT1 E . . 1 ..., APPROVID AS TO FORK AND LICAL sunrcuscr . . . •• 1 ----AILIAtil— " -- .P it.' .."., "........ ' i7' /048URT SAUNDERS, CO Agr N , .i•-i '/it 7 0-.1 R-83-18C FU D Ordinance i • ..,,fri" ,'STATE OF FLORIDA ) . . . : .., J. COUNTY OF COLLIER ) ' . ' I, WILLIAM J. REAGAN, Clerk of Courts.in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do .:':,..• • • hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct • original of: 1 ,'•••ik ORDINANCE NO. 84-6 i‘ which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners during v.' .., • Regular Session the 17th day of January, 1984. 1 ;•'' WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of 1 County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, .thAgialth 4W{ iNr• day of January, 1984. A 4*.••■•V :•I.1.2, WILLIAM S. REA44...° .... Clerk of Courts and Clerk ' .•••1 Ex officio taiBoard of .. rt; County Commissioners E, imp iu51 32 1 . , t ',,"•.,., B V g n a Clerk • ' Aida ordinance filed with the Secretary of State's Office the 23rd day of 4sungry, 1984 and acknowledgement of that ling received this 26th day of •:•January, 1984. • • • • ' • -By: • rg agr . eput ark . , . • .— . - — •••— * ' • A. . . • 4. ....-- .._........-- -------• II. is im . 1 is 1 I r',n 0t. . I ;_.. ai ,. g' • qf,.; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT it '1 FOR TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER 1 , ,�1 • COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA I lr ` f%' PREPARED BYt i k; .``. '. DR. NERO 3. SPAGNA, PRESIDENT •• FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, INC. 'i.' '• ,BOX 1355 q NAPLES, FLORIDA 33939 ' I (813) 263-0399 n . ...y, • 1. JULY, 1983 r REVISEDI DECEMBER 1S, 1983 t.1):..:!. •.,. 3 4.� 190 iris z `r.y4,4,^yq::'. • I • j ' .. .. $. • . =I . rall 41111 • :.. .„., l • h ''''..t .1■• • Ji • 1 i , .'s ".•., f.. i • if t.I71 ; 4y .I '.''• .1 TABLE OF CONTENTS •. I 1, PAGE"..■',,., 1;..'..i, . • OF CONTENTS ' i . ' I1ST OF NAPS Li ril 4'1NEZONE PETITION , . Lit t '. ',..,. , LEGAL DESCRIPTION -1.- 11 t.3:-.:GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE -1- . . 'i . J.- ..,STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE -2- PROJECT INFORMATION -2- f ,, :,,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION -2-_ Ilt-'%. CullRENT ZONING -2. ' EX/STING LAND USE -3- .• I " - -;ADJACENT LAND USE k. -3.- 1 :V LAND ELEVATION -3- 1 )1:_t%SOILS -ILL R,.?:,k':VEGETATIVE COVER -3- , - -4- ift (,;-1:11ISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES -4-. . ., WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT .-4••• t -' 't•,.. ,_;,...„‘WATER MANAGEMENT ' . -4- ? --,,'„,!WATER SUPPLY ...S- Vi .,, SOLID WASTE -S- . ) : ELECTRICITY 111 ,:-.?OLICE PROTECTION . -5- FIRE PROTECTION -5- . TELEPHONE ' -5.. 3!• j..,:t CEEDULE•OF DEVELOPMENT -6- I • 7...,,I, USE REGULATIONS FOR PARCEL A-1 AND PARCEL B-2 and 8-3 7 thru 12 • WASTER PLAN APPROVAL -13- , . , PROVAL STIPULATIONS . 13 thru 16 sou n51 nct 34 , . • " II 1 .,"11. • • i . 1 . • • ii II ... • . . . .• .11••■••■..... .....• 6 • I, • • I ■•■■....a... O.......w. ...r....a.... 1' 4• • � • rali lit I, 'tl IiT ';`i Z i..4 S. ; t '•' 4.`1'. 1 r I '• 11 ,, ;' LIST OF MAPS • ' ++x, MAP REFERENCE & TITLE PACE /.e... MAP A LOCATION MAP -17-• '- t-�. •' MAP 8 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH -10. ,` MAP C TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .14- f,%.: MAP D EXISTING LAND USE .20• L. •q} MAP B SOILS MAP -21- . MAP F VEGETATION MAP -22- h"f• MAP G . WATER MANAGEMENT MAP 723. A. MAP H MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN •214.• • .Y.,,vQ .if.'tii%. . f ;i. n51f�E 35 1.,.. :`a,. y;; . y f 41. .' . ii 1 • ( .i 1t' • ' .. _ _ i • . rift . . 1111111 fills 1; .. ,fit.* i %,' '` LEGAL DESCRIPTION �.t5". commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 49 I '14 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; J. thence along the east line of said Section 35, J1 North 1'-56'-55" West 200.1.4 feet to a point on the north • ., right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); thence along said north right-of-way line, North 89'-45'-01" West 33.1.23 feet to a point of intersection ,,:,: of said north right-of-way line and the south Limited Access, q.1. right-of-way line of State Road 93 (1-75), and the POINT OP BEGINNING of the parcel herein described: thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley) on the following five courses: 1) North 89'-45'-01" West 2398.66 feet; ;1 2) South 89'-56'-16" West 1547.43 feet; • 3) North 806-43'-58" West 709.38 feet; 4) North 39'-52'-42" West 209.91 feet; 71. 5) North 106-24'-33" West 209.94 feet to a point on the Ai;.• East Limited Access, right-of-way line of State Road 93 `.� (I-75); :1 thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line •s' of State Road 93 (I-75) on the following nine courses: .i: 1) North 36-19'-52' East 285.34 feet; i" 2) North 23'-37'-28" East 149.83 feet; 1./ 3) North 646-12'-39" East 149.83 feet; (.j. 4) North B6'-37'-01" East 776.54 feet; . 5) South 876-55'-12" East 318.32 feet; { 6) South 78'-44'-38' East 310.32 feet;• 7) . South 74'-09'-17" Last 1199.30 feet; ,,.!:,,i. 8) South 73'-00'-33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) Southeasterly. 233.67 feet along the are of a circular curve concave to the nertheast,.having a radius of 11621.16 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 73'-35'-07" East 233.67 feet to the north 1,•1, right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley), >. and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; 0. being a part of south 1/2, Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; -•r subject to easements and restrictions of record; ' containing 69.40 Acres of land more or less; .�°',:. bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation ',. . right-of-way map for State Road 93 (I-75). 1 41a. GENERAL LOCATION OF PROTECT SITE • Toll Gate Commercial Center is located in the southeast quadranq of •t 'n;'',. Interstate 1-75 and CR 951 approximately five miles east of the • i •• Naples. Airport at the eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84), see Map A. n -1- '4'k s,„, 051UcE 36 • } l 1 -cta rill iron 1 l 0 • „(,y STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE „`' The petitioner states that if he proceeds with the proposed '1 'f ' development, he wills t • (a) Do so in accord with: f: '' 1. • The Master Plan of Development officially adopted for the district. , 2. Regulations existing when the amendment rezoning the 1 1. r: : ..: land to PUD is adopted; and. 3. Such other conditions or modifications as may be j attached to the rezoning of the land to the PUD classification. 4. Thi goals and policies of Collier County's Compre- hensive plan.. . . , ' .' • (b) Provide agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, or . sureties acceptable to the County for completion of the I tit undertaking, in accord with the adopted Master Plan as well as for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas, functions and facilities that are not to be I gil% provided, '•operated or maintained at general public ex- (c) Bind his lliuccesaora ..in• title .to any commitments made under (a) and,.()S) preceeding. • • •(. : PROTECT INFORMATION .• Total Acres: 69.4' .. • . Er Number of acras.deyoted to-various categories of laird use: • • Development area - ,39.9 _ • ; Water Management area . - 14.6 Road Right-of-Way 4.3 t F.P.L. Easement 3.6 "L Flow Way - . 5.0 . Sewage Treatment Plant . - 3.0 'Y COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION ., The project site is designated commercial on the Collier County I.,�,. Comprehensive Plan. .. " • CURRENT ZONING ,.•;, The project site Is currently zoned.A-2, Rural Agriculture. .. -2- r' :=3. goof C51 PAc( 37 I .R1,r . • RAJ. • • N. i } I- 4n I ;r. 1 A• s 4 'r.. V�ti lf EXISTING LAND USE 1 At the present time the site is'unoccupied, sae Map B and Map D. ADJACENT LAND USE The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The property located at the northwest corner of CR 951 and SR 84 is presently used as a Sunoco Service Station Site. The property located on the southwest corner of CR 951 and SR 84 is �� used as a Standard Service Station site. The property on the north consists of the 1-75 right-of-way. The 1t property on the south is vacant. • 4„i:- ", LAND ELEVATION 4''. ., , The elevation of the project site varies from 9.8 feet to 11.6 ' feet. For elevation distribution see Map C. Toll Gate Commercial i' Center lies within zone 8 as identified on the Federal Flood •In- surance Rate Map (effective September 14, 1979). Zone 8 is identi- fled as those areas between limits of the 100-year flood and It 500-year flood. This means that no development will be occuring • within the 100-year flood prone area. • ic.'• SOILS +•,• There are three types of soil cover on the project site. They are i, Arzell fine sandst iceri fine sands and Pompano fine sands. The • 4� distribution of these soil types is shown on Map B. VEGETATIVE COVER A breakdown of the vegetative cover of the project area is as f follows, see Map F for detailed distributions • KEY VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE ;?t Al Pineland 9.1 • ! $r� A2 Transitional Zone Pine a Cypress 6.5 8 Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonla 5.7 . C Transitional Zone/Cypress 29.4 • D Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia 3.7 • E Functional wetland 9.4 P Transitional Zone/Cypress 1.2 • ,, CP Cabbage Palm Heads 0.5 '. -3- ' K.:. n5ina 3g • N. n. I, Y. •,;it,,•• g ` M Melaleuca 1.4 r �3' .• FPL Cleared and Filled Land 2.3 Total 69.4 " ' There are no unique features of the vegetation. All species and : f4.: associations are "typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods Iti',vr,:; of level' sandy areas of Collier County. V� '* WILDLIFE Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks, nests, etc. consisted of .I' the 'representative species, such as raccoon, snakes and wading birds, which normally occur in a habitat such as the Toll Gate Commercial Center site. ' $f ,,rr r No endangered or threatened species were observed on the site. r:. HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES John Beriault, Field Representative of the S.N. Florida Archaeo- �'fl. logical Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist on , the tract. '. . ' i WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT On-site treatment of wastewater flows will be provided by an .. l extended aeration plant designed and constructed to State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation criteria. The >y plant will be designed to handle peak flows for both phases. Pro- f visions will be made in the design to handle the high BOD levels expected. Grease traps will be installed where necessary. _' WATER MANAGEMENT .if". The Water Management 'Plan, see Map G, consists of two drainage sub- basins divided by the Florida Power and Light easement. The pro- posed drainage system will be designed to SFWMD and County cirteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be designed for the 25-year 3 day rainfall event. The finished floor 1 elevations will be established by the 100 f4 Y year-zero discharge de- 'sign . ' �,-' event. • s; • wow X51 PAGE 39 •J. -4 /I'0: • • I 1 • ' r� s i , ill rill • • tip • .f,I1'; I : .--. , 4 ' 'tir WATER SUPPLY .c Potable water will be supplied by the Collier County Water-Sewer ' . District. w.. Non-potable water will be supplied for landscape irrigation and : other non human consumptive uses by an on-site well system. 3 SOLID WASTE solid waste will be disposed of at the Collier County Sanitary Landfill. Collection will be provided by commercially operated •r trucks; anticipated pickup will be two times per week. ; .:, . ELECTRICITY f Electricity will be provided by the Florida Power i Light Company, Inc. POLICE PROTECTION Police. protection will be provided by the Collier County Sheriff Department. I .: FIRE PROTECTION, . �. V)!. Fire protection will be provided by the Golden.Oate Fire Control A. and Rescue District. 11«..':. TELEPHONE ' Telephone service will be provided by United Telephone of Florida. 4a, . i t kw l51rla 10 i'fll,',. -s- t I•IY }. f+ to 1 III" . ' 1, . , .. ,r . . .'f.,.. .•:, r 'i. z 14: ,. L •• SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT r; .•, Project development will commence as soon as all required permits y�� have been obtained and will continue to build-out. 4p• VI' The following schedule indicates the'antieipated start and ' completion dates for the various components of the project, please refer to Map H. T t or COMPONENT ACREAGE SITE START COMPLETE F a.. Parcel A-1, A-2 '16.4 23.7 7985 1987, i Lake 41, incl. CNatural Retention Area 3.0 4.3 1984 1986 �1" Road Construction 4.3 6.2 1984 1986 F:'. F.P.L. Easement 3.6 5.2 - 1 •' Parcels B-1, B-2, 8-3 22.5 32.4 1986 1990 Lake 42, incl. S ' ` ' ' Natural Retention Area .:-11.6 -- .16.7 1984 1986 y .- Wastewater Treatment•Site 3.0 4.3 1984 1987 ar Natural Flow Way 5.0 7.2 1984 1987 . ti: P.;' , Totals 69.4 100 • 1061( fl51►,a 41 • • -6- . 1• F it•` W,., . F-r : ti , . • i 1 • - - J_ .. t�. jA USE REGULATIONS FOR PARCELS A-1 AND A-2 0' 1) Intended use of Parcels A-1, A-2. It is the intent of this document that Parcels A-1 and A-2 be used for commercial purposes which serve the motoring public tieing Interstate 1-75 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an areawide nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokalee urban areas. h r1" Further it is the intent of this document that Parcels A-1 and A-2 shall be used in accordance with all current federal, state : and county regulations except as specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 2) Permitted Principal Uses and Structures T No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part for other than the following: (1) Automobile service station including engine tune-ups and minor repairs. (2) Banks and financial institutions, business and professional offices. • • (3) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. i:. (4) Convention and exhibition halls. • (5) Department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops and dry goods stores. • (b) Electronic games and furniture sales. (7) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. (8) Motels; hotels and other transient lodging facilities. • (9) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food • +. restaurants. • y • (10) Shopping centers (see section 10.5 of Ordinance 82-2). -7- 100If 051, 42 • • 6 . i . II ; • ! 1111111 F. )OM . - i I 3 (11) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. ,.,,y,.,.. (12) Supermarkets . ' (13) Variety stores; vehicle rental-automobile and U-haul type of vehicles and equipment including outside display; , 1, t veterinary offices and clinics; no outside kennelling. i,".' (14) Any' other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning • Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. `= 3) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures • i (1) Any accessory uses or Structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. ''1 (2) Caretakers .residence - as permitted by the applicable j'' Collier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time a permit is requested. 1, 4) Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures h (1) Car •Wash ' •. • . . • , ,.e.. (2) Attached residence in conjunction with a business use - 74: gne (1) per business. :.5.,... ), (3) Permitted uses with less than 1,000 square feet gross • 14:: ' floor irea in the principal structure. *! '.,' 5) Development 'Standards tf r (1) ;Minimum Lot Area:•Ten thousand (10,000) square feet.' ` 1 (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at •; x, the front building setback line. A. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: • 'a. Front Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet plus one •(1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty • (50) feet. }# ' toot O51P41 43 fi; l • .I ` ,� . caIN' . • • • i *' . ' 1 ill. I- :it . i '`' i':,..',..i.' ■ b. Side Yard - None or a minimum of five (5) feet with t'': unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non- { }f. . residential uses. . Fifteen (15) feet for motels, �F.-.- hotels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) ' ' i",,; foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. , 1 l-i. c. Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet 1 'i .' d. Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal t `• water line of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet c } ry;. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures One thousand t P. (1,600) square feet per building on the ground floor. s _ t r"" (6) Maximum Density - Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging facilities. ' (7) Distance Between Structures - Same as for side yard set- backs. f sZ c (8) Signs - As may be permitted or required by the applicable A 3•: T`-oilier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time a permit is requested. , .r (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading 0 Requirements: As may be permitted or required by the ap- plicable Collier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time a permit is requested. ; (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: As may be permitted or required by the applicable Collier County Zoning Ordinance •'i; in effect at the time a permit is requested. • ' (11) Outside Merchandise Storace and Displaying: Unless• E specifically permitted cor a given use, outside storage or ' display of merchandise is prohibited. • I, '` .. s� 051P 44 .. .. , .: s, • . ,,., -f, -9- r,• .— MMEmmilM f y F f� � t.;l '',+ USE REGULATIONS IN PARCELS 8-1, 8-2 AND 8-3 ii y :' 1) Intended use of Parcels 8-1', 9-2 and 9-3. x. It is the intent of this document to encourage selective commercial uses in Parcels 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3 to provide the 11.1 ' sale, service, transportation, storage and distribution of wxa, goods and service to the -traveling public on I-75 and to the .t; citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems. r. ti, A major function of these Parcels is to serve as a focal point for the arrival of goods from other points of 'the region and Ij country and then be processed for distribution to the local trade market: :w' It is-intended that •inside- storage and warehousing along with r:. limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, i . smoke, noise•or vibration be permitted on Parcels 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3. Further, it is the intent of this document that Parcels 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3 shall be used in accordance with all of the current -federal, state and county regulations except as +, specified otherwise in this document or as may be approved otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. 1. 2) Permitted Principal Uses and Structures No building -or• itsucture, or part thereof, shall be erected, :,;`- altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part of other than the following: YFt: . (1) Any principal•use or structure permitted on Parcels A-1 ,Y and A-2. - '' .'.,.- (2) Assembly operations in an enclosed building. t, • (3) Building supplies and contractors storage facilities: bulk storage yards not including junk or salvage yards. , : ',J. : (4) Car wash, communications service and equipment repair. `f. • (5) Freight movers and storage. • i -10- . ,.. not P51P 45 • H r ` V ' . . "y . 3' • ., • t• . t ,, (6) Laboratories, research, design and testing; laundries; . - lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing (including food processing but I i not abatoir; packaging or fabricating In a completely �. enclosed building). (7) Miscellaneous uses such as express offices telephone exchanges motor or bus or truck or other transportation _}:a terminal and related uses; motorcycle sales, service and repair including outside displays museums and tourist .� attractions. 7' (6) New and used car sales, service and repair including outside display. III ,,. (9) Offices, general purpose. 0 (10) Recreational Vehicle Park. I '' (11) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing" establishments and similar uses. 4 i- (12) Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and with the I% foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. 4 3) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures ''.. (1) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the uses and structures. . T_ 4) Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures le,P. (1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business - one ,-,f (1) per business. . (2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet gross floor areas in the prinicipal building. 5) Development Standards rf . ,.,,• (1) Minimum Lot Areas Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. . ' 'Mina-11- not 46 4 ,'n i•• • . • • • f•.j. , I - far '_ e. I (2) Minimum L the frontobuilding setback line. ndred (100) feet as measured at j !r!•, (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: y:,.' a. Front Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. 4. b. Side Yard - None, or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for a� non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for hotels, U4 motels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over '" fifty(50) feet. Attached residences shall be treated 1 as non-residential. ' c. Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. d. waterfront - Twentyy--five (25) feet from the normal level of any artifically created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. i. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. a3, • (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor. (6) Maximum Density: •• Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of +j: land tor-hotel, motel and transient lodging facilities. 0 (7) Distance•Between Structures: Same as .for side yard .setbacks. (8) $ignsi •Ae•sii beppirmitted or required by the applicable Collier County. Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time a permit.is requested. . (9) Minimum Off-Street Parkint and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As may be permitted or r/quared by the . applicable Collier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at !! the time a-permit is requested. .., I (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: As may be required by . the applicable Collier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time a permit is requested. ;• (11) Meibhandise'St'orage and Display, Unless specifically , permitted For a given use, outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited. rl; -12- i k MK 0• 47 • • • f . • • II 41111 11111 r .. 111 MASTER PLAN APPROVAL Subdivision Master Plan approval as shown on Map H is requested as . part of this PUD submittal. APPROVAL STIPULATIONS ems. I. Water Management Advisory Board reviewed this petition and re- commended approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Detailed site drainage, plans shall be submitted to the Water Management Advisory Board for review. No con- struction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the sub- mitted plans is granted by the Water Management Advisory } Board. 7 2. An Excavation Permit shall be required in accordance with County Ordinance No. 80-24, as amended by Ordinance No. 83-3, for construction of the two retention lakes. 3. On-site and off-site groundwater conditions shall be further investigated as they relate to historic local drainage patterns and the Henderson Creek Basin. r 4. Developer shall recognize that this area is subject to flooding and will proceed with construction at own risk and acknowledge that Collier County will not be held re- sponsible for any flooding problem that may occur. II. TRAFFIC: The Traffic Engineer has the following recommendations: Subject to FOOT approval, the developer shall provide the following: 1. A southbound left turn lane on C.R. 951 at S.R. 84 be- f fore any certificates of occupancy are issued. 2. A future dual southbound left turn facility on C.R. 951 at S.R. 84 when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. t 3. Separate lanes for left turns, right turns and through traffic movements on the westbound approach of S.R. 84 to C.R. 951. 4. The developer agrees to pay a fair share contribution 1 •' in accordance with any lawfully adopted regulation ap- '," plicable to this property. -13- i wu 051 rirt 48' �.I i{t • r �I rr • • —S 'a 1 4 .s MEMORANDUM .TC+: ■a,. ew.* P atL.ImplantA. r1 n.p;. FROM:, 7 I tams.. ac.tLteiea Administrator ,•'' RE: Petition R-113-1SC. DRI-83-2C. Toll Cate • Commercial Center, S 35-49-266 t' We have reviewed the PUD and DRI documents for the project A.., referenced above and have no objection to the recone as requested. i;' Romper. we require the following stipulations as • condition to our recommendation for approval: 1) The items listed in Attachment No. 1. ,' A. 2) We require a written Agreement with the owner of the project. , legally acceptable to the County Water-Sever District, stating that: • a) The proposed on-site wastewater treatment facilities to be li 33 constructed as part of the proposed project must be regarded es interim; it shall be Constructed to State & Federal ;j standards and be owned, operated and maintained by the owner, his assigns or successors until such time as the County's Central Sewer Facilities are available to service the project. $ b)-Upon connection to the County's Central Sever Facilities, N. the Owner. his assigns or successors shell abandon, dismantle j. and remove from the site the interim sewage treatment . iseility. All work related with this activity shall be • performed at no cost to the County or the County Stater-Sewer �� .n..•.•= District. 'i. l'"- c) Connection to the County's Central Sewer facilities "ill be made by the owners, their assigns or successors at no cost to the County or to the County pater-Sewer District within 90 days after such facilities become available. t.. d) All construction plans and technical epecifieetions related to connections to the County's Central Sewer �'' facilities will be submitted for review and approval prior to . commencement of construction. :s:< e) The owners, their assigns or suceeseors shall agree to pay all system development charges at the time that building Permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County y, • Ordinances and Regulations in efface at the time of Permit • :• request. 3)��s, Any items within the PUD i DRI documents which conflict with ;'; above listed atipulstions must be revised accordingly. . 4) As stated in the PUD & DRD documents, this development plans to obtain potable vatec service from the Collier County Regional -J4- • ten��.. 051J Gt 49 , • 4 V 3» • . • I • I • • 3 ;. Mn Ober f. Page 2 July 22, 1913 1 I : i;,i ,,,,4,,,. .. . ' ..' .i!,(•:' • . • • ... •- •• . ,;. Water System. Connections in this system will not be available , I. until the construction of the water supply. treatment and trans- • mission facilities are completed. At that time, connaction•vill be on a "first come first serve" basis vhen the follavin; occurs: • • • a) Water is available to the area • I b) An application for service is approved. • .• • i' c) All applicable charges and fees are paid. 17 '' r'.. ILD/JFM/b I. ti:-. p • [ Ii!.1Vel,' • -;.s...' Attachment 9 • ti . . • : iq.:t..,),::- . • ,. . . • . . i•, ;,,,..p. , ,.., ., . • . .. ..„... Ilit,,,..„_,-,: • . .. „:„.:„ .. . . • , ,.... .. , . .. ,i.,..•.„,.. • . ,,,,, ,,. • • . 1 r , 47:• • 111, Z. '_ 1001 051►AG1 50 . • • r t . Itl.i• • -15- t 144.'1..•• • i'' '" ; r 'r 'r 4 1. I. . ATTACHMENT N0. I - UTILITY DIVISION POLICY STIPULATIONS i p 1) All construction plans and technical specifications for the 7 proposed Utility Facilities must be reviewed and approved by the Utility Division prior to commencement of construction. 2) All on-site and offw ite Utility Facilities constructed by the Developer in connection with the Developeent shall be constructed to County Standards at no cost to the County and 11.. shall be deeded to the County Hater-Sevet District, in �, accordance with applicable County Ordinances and Regulations. 'es: 3) All customers connecting to the sanitary sever and water til' distribution facilities will be customers of the County %,. Water-Sewer District and will be billed in accordance with a �` rate structure approved by the County. Review of the proposed rates and subsequent approval by the board of County Commissioners must be completed prior to activation of the r' collection/tranamission system and vas cevater treatment facility servicing the project. Rate reviews must be is full j compliance with County Ordinance No. 76-71 as amended, revised or superseded. It t.. 4) All construction on the proposed sanitary sever system shall ucilisa proper methods and materials to insure water tight conditions. S) Appropriate Utility Resements dedicated to the County M• Water-Sever District must be provided for the proposed Wafer ??��f' and Sewer facilities to be constructed, when they do not lie ,. within public rights-of wsy or Utility FEasements.t�`. 6) Data required under County Ordinance No. 50-112 muse be • submitted and approval granted prior to approval of the construction documents for the project. Submit q copy of the approved DER permit application for the sewage collection and Ir transmission system and a copy of the approved DER permit application and construction permit for the wastewater treatment facility to be utilised. . 'F;K}.- DODr O51°a d 51 1. , , r r,x, '' -16- • • . 1 N.. •... a .'r 4t ra:.: :w • .Elr: PE•(y► ,.,V r -.,',,,1,..4'-V,. MI Iledilf• % &DATA .{ • { .1 j NIAIaV seam . GULF ".... �'-; _CENTER pup .. I:�ILii7 = • OF �:(,,i •$ p - �+ "" ljjjaj I ._—— _ 3 g 'ti, = t _ , MEXICO t t1' - imit011k-- r -ww-mum I . , �g (l ` * TOLL GATE t> •�"'•�•'"•.• ERQLME5 n s COMMERCIAL 11 I CENTER .NM.......w Woo w.....e LOCATION MAP • MAP A• ■ r II e — _ - . -- • ) -,,......,...-.4:•,•,011,* + :Y J � y'�`F�• •' • ). 't :. S A•�J . �• - i.' :. 1.�y�3eiy f y:�' I• !y nf••. y- 4T,i�• 4 �y . Y•cj:N d•o% 't?, . .7 I:3 j ,i• �°.� wtv� a . . ;i•' y ' '•7 • Y• r:s scf`'e-4,:. 1 .vit r ... . � r" :7 _ . :yti1+Ar"F, N• - s 't: � . ?�j,i -r-"la--t • . '.,•:,.rr.ty� t ,.. 1n � v , j. r;- j?r=l If !. • a •• ! .,, •A it la•• KN $, Nr. .', .'I'••._�•:in. 'IS' � • • • . ....... , . 2;....i. ..,?.,_,,,y,Nr.p:.•-. .. . • . +� ' •••;I .r.•••�. 'r ! '11..ir/t4'{,t ,4 r'I•'.,,t,1 ....,;:....a4vc..„• .1,,,..„1;?....i, ..N�ea T,•�&.�, 1�%r. 2 ry " "•�,• •�s�,� Vic".:.�:•.•.�l 1 ;[�S+4.... b• 'A^{. "''r�, 1;, 4,, 'T !r .,�`y .1•1 h>. ::•;i•41. r 1 k7. �yt }:Rn ,xl, PR P=4 T t. ` `+--..,,.... � : )a i � �;ri�.le s 7r, 7.1 • •:; .. 3..r• � T- .t/y 4a•`.,.„...it,„..,..„.....,, y •di••.i.y;r`F • .,•k(, • .� •: •.'► r «'Bi• fj�r 1• alt 'r•K • R,� •� �? 7 ��aC,.��} 3 yu. : {: ru .. .. ... .. .. Y • •q1 a•`N' >.t ? LI- ,i 3Gs'1&e•1l�lr 'yr•+. . =• _. Wit.: a. .",1r• •,. •ti :s: ••r1•i;P`.SF C^•.-J•.1.-.C.;"' . 1/07P x1414-:c..-foalLe. ._ - - •ri'*�r�'• `• -•!...'.4.70' i•F • ••Y....�•1j .Nr .....t .{. ALIA t08"ALLL1i."v: ,:.. y • -" +,.• ..••• ..z."•-ii::-. :L� , ,+1<"c,.z.7,, i+ P ..43,....104, _f•.x 9cc3.44. J'? a i:& ..•,� ?.r t y;». f,,,,,;( .�+,' rp• .. 1•: w' N. .:... .!), Nt/� o.�1.r5`Y "' Y `a •4 s. s,Y.�.L. rhJEai !'C� (_ f_", TOLL .GATE ;y• :F., !t :,..4.t' a'r ,,.-"" ' A E o -7:,..4.*~r. �.,�.� COMMERCIAL I I1 -a.- .-MNN��•,,. .. CENTER /rFWY.N IM.i MI.4NY/.NM. 74 N yr v., •••...r AERIAL t110TQpiAPf1 • IMP D • i MOO MUM.MM M NM■ w WOO i M•tHMIM NtWM ROOM 4.11 y r ..r..«.I..w. l i i � I . iii r r ri 11 1 1 1 r M V N ,t •••4y t ii. 4 M u ON r Y - aYr a 4 1 oal • •...• •1 N 4' •4 M r Y v V OR r M Y U N Y V N tl. Y •1 Si W . 1� MA U ql N tt • 11 sN 1 N {. 11 u Y . Y w •I ,1 �� STAYS ROAD 0{ "lam_ ALLIGATOR ALLEY 1 r _.....11.,.. i I I I. • 1:10 . - r7 . „ • TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL f i . t .-- , CENTER i ....•II...trM.M..NN.1.1. .. •.1• •wMa1.:11....iw...+...+.. TOrOOI APipc wM.+tt 0 i ./y,/��/.1•.:�.. •r .,, L. r3ioliki re.";.• .•,. T3 ¢r..{C.,:,.+o :aofc.i'�?.i1': �":•1•• P.14=71:77 ' . 4. it�±. :- .. L. I•. f • IN •N . Ir .N in . •T' I" N U, of p 1 tJ 1 .N AyjBr i I•. i © w TATE-AOAO-yam ALUGATOl ALLEY - In • uwaw • (r-----7- Iw......•.Iw. :"`•"M""�'n TOLL GATE U.Mann NY•P'n.N•IMIf _ COMMERCIAL••.� .n NN. I CENTER I . .1.N On.HUM.1•f. •M.'••.I.A • ROOTING •• MAIU I rw Om.�„ Yr..-su- m.�_ U • li • • . . . . • . ' . . . .. III .--.... ..!.. I i • . 1 I I 1 M 1 1 1 / I . i I Ass Yawl ft*HAI r- - I Ito liod Nu Sooll • X . SAS Nom.Me We V I its . II I I , \N\ Ili I . •44,„„,., • I . . Pi rir I 0 OP AoS I I I I I I AM . " I I \ ATM ROAD e4 ALLIGATOR ALM 11 , " 1 1 " 1 (---T I ; ! . . (....L. TOL L :GATE COMMERCIAL I.) r FON.A.A.D.AssAN 4 Pm%As. • CENTER .. MIN MAMA of IllmeMPAINAN. .. .66. . , . saw Imp writ. ' • • i-;:.:•-;-'. • ,. • • -. • . . . . . . • • • ,--i-4::ti,... •-" -'-, . -' - I ....! ..i — - . . ' .. .-_-..,..;__,,,__ .,....i..-_,.:__,....,....i.t.._,,,,.,,.1--.......1 .-.6.. ./0,1,..—_......-...--.1.. --.-,........,--....-....,1■1,...i. -....,... -..--, I 1 I ♦µ •1 r `—��•Mw•1••►R.' itf•` ti...K:• •'M ''-, rr•••�_.1 • I ` • ' I L. Iiii • MGM I I .• Wr•.r...r a....••I • .I N •.w aMwrM RAM 4w+. . CP 1rr.•r..•I a•V•p••• r MI ! AwsrwdMArr• I• ` s 1 • S V :Aiwa Da.twat I • } i 1 f 1 N Y.MMw.- II I i I • A+ i` • I • 4417.rf r I 1 1 jjlikbr ...H. 1 t I • ` STATE ROAD NI i CA 1 'te AI IJGATOR AUEY �t ol ....1 1 r-----.- . I TO L GATE � � CO MERClAL ...•...• _ C�EPITER lb . ID R•M.M•IM.V elm AWN.la. • VEGETA MAP .' MAP P ..1.o .rrww ' i r I I 1 M 1 ■ 1 I _2222_ r•a�rmmr,s.. _plo. - - �er..eY4 _ _ — ..• I `i� I Y ti i 1 I narwpJLa•S f \III --:.-1.......... 3I I1 • �' 4f`' `l• 4..4, ¢` t G , `•f;• ' I T ARIL t 6S S L . SW-EASY . 1 ; .WiASSI . Al.b ikr.4, ..4 I 4. yN� LAST a 1 r! a '..�'- 4b •tz..�.. I ., - _---_fir.. - : --- f TA I—GOAD-SA . '7K —':1111111111t; {{g - - - I-—. - 400 11....... ALLM.AIA4.. 1.1.0 — -- OO I L "°`"' TOII.L GATE . • ......1.22222,. !� COMMERCIAL n2+\11..00.,,.. CENTER V .......' ,■.._1 .2....,...,......... It •6 olly84%W+SMA..A.k 4� sum or1.NM I' p.w..rr2 1.�....K+..W. •.» WASH MANAOIMINT PLAN • MAP O • w�MM 1...MM • t In 11111 MN . t it •• 1 i .. .... '4- . i 4,,,... -'.. IV STATE OF FLORIDA ) • .4.1.-4.: COUNTY OF COLLIER ) ..-. I, JAMES C. GILES, Clerk of Courts in end for the .1 --'4• Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County. Florida. do oi, .. • hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of ..,4. Ordinance No. 92-10 ' ,;.■,''',' which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on _.,,.. ' the 11th day of February, 1992, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of • County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 12th '..:,.`7its'••• day of February. 1992. JAMES C. GILES ' Clerk of Courts and Clermr.•:,.".4;44-t;„*.. ..; Ex-officio to Board of 44,..• $7....,,,," --F.% ••• *. • • County Commissioners ...; .4 .... ...•••■$,;:. Are.44.1.....$645"--4,..a.-...:'..:,4.-t"tf':i ••• • • ...0.4.4:•: .1. .. ..--:(!t.,=,1,..- . By: /s/Ellie Hoffman 1.7. • ".. Deputy Clerk l''• - )1.; i ? • ,. •., ' • • Mr Q51 59 , ,•,-,.... , ,.• .0;, .. - . ... • 4+. i t 'II• I , '4.'7.. :',. . . ;....-. .. .•, : -'i.''.:.7 . • , • .,,_ ; ,, af! • • .11111 111111 1111 o • DEVELOPMENT ORDER 92-, • ,• RESOLUTION NUMBER 92- WO A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 94-1 OF THE TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OR REGIONAL IMPACT (ORI) BY PROVIDING FORS SECTION ONE A AMENDING THE • TRANSPORTATION COMMITMENTS; SECTION ONE B • '' ADDING DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS COMMITMENTS; SECTION ONE C ADDING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT/WATER SUPPLY COMMITMENTS; SECTION ONE D ADDING HOUSING REQUIREMENTS; SECTION ONE E ADDING GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS; SECTION ONE F ADDING PUD DOCUMENT; SECTION ONE G DELETING UNTITLED SECTION 4.0; SECTION ONE H AMENDING THE TERMINATION DATE; SECTION ONE I ATTACHING THE MASTER PLAN; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND SECTION FOUR, EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE. F^r WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, w • Florida approved Development Order $4.i on January 17, 1984, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Toll Gate • .,: Commercial Center; and WHEREAS, the Application for Development Approval (ADA) was !4.0... incorporated into and by reference made a part of the Development • r'^• Order; and • WHEREAS, the real property which is the subject of the Devel- opment Order is legally described and sat forth in Exhibit "A" to the Development Order; and I 't WHEREAS, the owners of the DRI property desire to expand the DRI ! area; and • . WHEREAS, William R. Vines, ' representing Toll Gate Commercial Center, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Ni; Florida, to amend the Development Order; end WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission has reviewed and Considered the report and recommendations of the Southwest Florida • ',, Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and held a public hearing on the f Yi petition on January 2, 1992; and • L: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has ; reviewed and considered the reports of the SWFRPC and the Collier ; " County Planning Commission and held a public hearing on the petition on '' 10er 051m • -1- r ,' Words Underlined are added; Words straek-through are deleted. • •r1;. • ;1. . • • • • in NIB V:. January 14, 1992, which hearing was continued to January 28, 1992; ' 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD O1► COUNTY .f•:' COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: n' , SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT' OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER A. Section 4.C.3., Transportation, of Development Order 84-1 for �..• the Toll Oats Commercial Center is hereby amended to read as follows: .,: 0;4: 3. TRANSPORTATION: • eranepertetien-`enerated-by-sett-Gate-eemmerete3-eenterr {s; when--eembined--with--ether--growth—in--the•-Greer-wilt neeessi tote----interseetien----4mprevasents----at----ths ��. interseetien--ef-eR-954--and-SR-84r---Other4sprevesents mew--else--be--rege4red--as--determined-by--e-senieering pregraer litCR seadetienat a, �Pha--app34eent--shalt--ba-required=-to»pet--for-tke signs}4eatienT--tarn-3enes--and-ether--isprevesents deemed-necessary-by-the-eeunty-8nglmeer-er-F1041-8er eke-interseetien-ef-OR-954-with-Bav4s-Bewleverd- SR - e- 84fr---These-isprevesents-ehatt-beaadet-the-tfsa that--thfa-4nterseet&en-is-found■te-exceed-level-ef service--■esr--Serv4ee-level-detersinatien-shell-be Bade--by--either--the--86131st•-eeunty--Engineering Department--er-FB84r---Te-this--endT-the--applicant shat*--eubsit-en--annual-menitering--report-te--the eelEier-•county-Engineering-Bepertmentr--the-Naples feellier--eeuntyt-MTPTOvr--FEISTY--and-the-9euthwest F&erida--Regtena3-Ptenning-evuneit-for-review--The first--menitering-report-shat}-be--submitted-at-the tine--ef--iasaanee--ef--the--first-eertifieates--ef • eeeupaney-far-Te33-Bate-eeme:areiai-eenterr--Aeperts shalt--be-submitted-annua3&y-until--buildeut-ef-the prejeetr---This-report-shell-eentain-truffle-scants taken--at-the-access-points-te-the-site-and-turning sevesents-st-the-OR-9StfOR-84-1nterseetienv br Menitering--eavta-Ses*everd--te--determine-its need for--fear-lanes-shalt-begin--with-Phase-Sr--111--the time-that-bhe-pertien-ef-Davis-Beskeverd-from-Radio • Read--to-ON-954-le-fevnd-te-exceed-level-ef-service sea--fby-the-Ge114er-scanty--Engineering-Department er--FB8*97-the-app14eent-eha&1-be-required-te-pay-a prepertienat--share-ef--the--asst-e8-two--&one-read eenstraetienr--excluding-right--of--wayr-three h-en • erearide--funding--pt rear---Thia--share--will--be determined--at--the--time-e8--full-butidest-rot-the prejeetf--te--the--teta4--veteme--ef-the--prefeeted traffic-aieng-the-reedweyr er At--the-time--that-the--Scanty-Wag4reer•-determines that-eR-954-from-E-i5-te-Davis-Boulevard-feR-841.-is fevnd-te-exeeed-&eve}-ef-service-seer-the-eppfieant she&1--be-required-te--pay-a-prepertienet--share-ef the--cost-ef-tae-lane-reed--eenstruettenr-exetudkng right-ef-way7--through-en-areaw4de-funding-pregramr The--app&ieent+s--share--sheutd--be--determined--as eat&ined-in-Reeemmendaaien-hr � Alternatives: « O.J�►j6I 61 Impact Fees: If $inct Collier County has adepts -2- r' rFF Words ynderlinea are added; Words atruek-through are deleted. o 46 K' • i i H 111 ,s, 11 UM IIIIII :.) . V. agopte4 an impact fee for development, this fee can be substituted for the proportional payment e outlined below. to the extent authorized by thq • terms of the impact fee ordinance in---the • , recommendations. Any external road improvements , already paid for should be credited towards the .. ✓ overall fee charged the applicant. ',.., The aenlicant or hit successor shall be fully ; TL, tesoonsible for site-related roadway and .• Intersection inprovements_reauired within the Toll , 1 , • w, •■• , • •• -he full cost for any siterulatid intersection tuprprevIjigniir1""AHtru not limited to eiauelization. turn lanes and additional 1 throuch lenes1 impel to be necesmary by Collier , , • , 1 • CRALA. ga• 4, •• • • 1 • • contribution to provide the necessary 1•• I .• • , -- i eggInistration. and canstructIon Inspection • - , • -, •- ,, rtinn . . , , • $R 84 (Davis Blvd.1 - Radio Rd. fCR856i to CR 1,51 • ;.- gBIi L.,. - 0 21 to project west entrap* . 04 !, CR 951 • . - Vanderbilt Beach Rd. _to Pine Ridaq $j Bd. (CR 8961 Hattlesnakg Hammock Rd. - County Barn Rd. to CR 951 ' • ...- , f. • • 1 . fianta..ilarktaraLlilyiL , . - SR 84 ;Davis Blvd. to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. • .1 . . • Yangraliltlisaalitla. - Atrpgrt Rd. (CR 311 to CR 951, ' '. • radio Rd. (CR 8561 - Hines Way tq Santa Barbara Blvd. • 1.: If any of the rogd ;moments identified lo_this paraaranh become deficient in the future. tit". • • • p. • • . . Influence (ASfl around such seament nursuant to thq Collier County Adequate Public Pacility Ordinance. - r.. The aoolicant shall make a ormortional sharq gontribution to the necessagy impuvements, lncludina but not limited to tight-of-vim cost of • - deemed necessary by roof or collier county. ex • . other anoronriate iuriadiction, to maintain the• ' gdooted level of service for the following gign1ficantly imnacte4 off-site regional • se; 051rAG: 132 . Intersections throuch prefect buildout: . - CR 95/1-75 ramna /- SR 84 (Davis alvd.liCR 151 -3- Words Underlined are added; Words strueh-threugh are deleted. - .- - ::- • 1 ,....,„ . . 1 . --- - -- - 231184 (Davis_hlyd.l/Radio Rd. �� r SR 84 !Davis Blvd /Santa Barbara Blvd. • —Radio Rd,/Santa Barbara Blvd_ • The timing far the.. itriation of he improvements Outlined in recormendatiene and NCN above shall be cad, at the time that a rggiona road sesmant or • a 1 - • shall be made • by Ce�lier County Te deterteine the axietiner levels of eery ..e on regional talilitiea • Florida Region nal Pllanning Coup.i�,or�et�ew The one Year gar the Toll Gate_Commercial Center p$I. Report& spell be submitted annually thereafter until after buildout of t_h_e arolenr ands a minimum ehal Contain Desk season beak he+_,counts and turning movements at each approved access point. Additional monitoring report infprmation shell be supplied as required by County policy. as that policy mayye modifiedsrom time to time., 1 L. Should the eventual development six of the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRZ be such that the trim iteration and external traffic of the orolict exceed the levels of service identified in the Substantial Deviation Anul cation on as ayerave daily pr average neck season peak hour basis. then the roject , ll go through a subptantial deviation determination as ►o ►outlined in C am• aeo glorida Status. , tollowinc transportation improvements shall be peeded_prior to. or coincident with. development of the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRi. if adopted. levels of ' service are to be maintained through puildout (1996) on regional red _seameptt and intersections. S11_04 (Davis Blvd.l • ▪ Radio Rd. (CR 9161 to CA.931 Widen to 4L -CR_64 CR 951 to nroject West enprance Widen to 4L N • ; - Vanderbilt Beac1L$d. to pine Ridge Rd. (CR 8961 widen to 4L Rattlesnake Ha�emr _e, °_„d. - County Barn Rd. to CR 951 Widen to 4L* Santa Barbara Blvd. - BR ilk (Davis Blvd.1 to Rattlesnake _; Hammock Rd. Widen to 61* yanderbilt Beach Rd, - Airport Rd. (CR 31) to CR 95i Widen to 4L* ; 1 . U51 pia 63 Radio Rd. (CR 8561 - Rings Way to Santa Barbara Blvd. Widen to 6L* { * or reclassify from a collector to an arterial at -4- " Words Underlined are added; Words struek-through are deleted. 1 .. , 011it IIIII MI . : . . shatagutincLumsdantisuaratistaL Q. neAmairAntshia.......i. ....... ,,1L1.!,,,idi2tAQAhLmnoi. „..... .. .... c,,,..... i T"I7. fmnmberlk1ua ." 1 x. L. nexammint_drder_oramd_max_ft_actnadarld-laz ' ,. i i 1 • t. .1xrilyements indicated above to • ..• hienificantly-iroacted reaional roadway, (red dintarmatiana._.-ithAtivir—sattignim21 magaxsEA-111mug-Inaimutianlluumatat thiLlsalloidingAgtutitiangui 111 11AnanalMSWitariDOXnartaxantimthatmak . • hour/Reek season traffic on the reaional road segments and intersections above exceed_ the I level of servign standards adopted by the County and the project is utilizing more than 5% of the level of service "De canacity for gran areas or "C" for rural areas. then further building Hermits and certificates of occupancy shall not be granted until the standards of the County'. concurrence • ;management system have been mat. 121 2auitranituanActssa_shorawaimsii.........„.4___ _. ._ _..._.. .__ . _ _ • . jyamAn33Luna....gumxi....ianALagmarmwjan addreased consistent with Southwest Floridg Asaional Planning Council oolicies. and the determination (4 oronortionpl share and/or pioelinina of She realepal road improvement* phall be in accordance with Section 163.3220 7.S. which requires a Local Government Development Agreement and a commitment by the ponlicent and/or the legal _government tQ ensure concurrency on all sionificantiv impacted reaional roads. ill The reaional roadway ligaments ' add intersections on which this mroiect hag substantial impacts are all operated and saintained by Collier County. The_gountv hee pads the decisiokto plan for and manacle the impacts of this Du throuah its duly adopted. comnrehensive plan rincludina the remedial plan amendments aareed to between Collier • County apd PCA. pursuant to that pertaie itthiliealintragnntAwmwflt12Brat parties IDDAH Case No. 89-12990M)1. The . County has coneidered the reaional roadway /moments and reaional roadway intersections as set_ _forth in 3.8 and C. hereof and hes determined to reauire the project to be subiect to and to COMDDI with the Concurrence ' hanaaement System (CMS 1 of Collier County...le adooted in its Growth Wanaaement Plan and implemented in its Adeauate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF1- Divison 3..15 of the Collier • 1 . .. 5. — . ,. v, . ,.. A • MirMin • • i ■ • q •i , Growth Manaaement Director to comolete ae Annual_ Update and Inventory (ADM by May 1 of larbWAALQaVagaandMlbligtaan - facilities based on the adopted level of OW OHM 64 service. The APP Ordinance reauire. the Board of County Commissioners by June lgf each XSAIXAt& 1111AlaliabI 4 • Influence leASI"1 around any road seament or -5- v,t Words Underlined are added; Words struck-through are deleted. ',... i , • *.: , •.!' . ______ Nesemmemenno 14',1 MIS la MI 4 intersection whir is defin is %,, uroieetad by the AUI to b. _ ,,_.._.___and which is not scheduled for nrovement in thl Capital Improvement Element (KM Ent of the yould provide facilities concurrent with t111 f impacts o! davelopman mursue.F o said API Ordinance. Pyrsuant to the APP Ordinance. 1 Is drawn around a deficient road segment are unable to obtain further Certificates oC i AST drawn around a road segment which oroiacted to become deficient are unable tq obtain Certificates of Public Facility Adeauagy that would allow impacts to exceed , the remaininu canacity of those road seaments. ne ptand(rds to be utilized by Collier County I; in establishing the boundaries of the Asi'g Ara set forth in Subsectio0 3.15.1.5 of the LAM Development Code. 7n addition to the previsions of the Collier County Adecuate Pubic Facilities Ordinance. Division 3.15 of the Land Development Code. the DR! shall be subject to the following conditions reaardina she transportation •iatpacts of the development: Ai The Toll Gate Commercial Center of the Land Development Code as that cede Ao the existed on the day of its adoutjon. Any of the Lend DeyslOpia t Code by Collier county shall not he effective or applied • to the DR! unless and until tbis iDevelooment Order is amended to chancres or amendme�yts to the APF. \\ Division 3.15 of the Land Development kb. The aanljcp hall ovide oft+ n it fifteen (151 days of publication each •` Year. a cony of ■aid UTh On the �„_aicna: facilities set forth in 1.B. and C. herein to the WFR nd he De a pl community Affairs. Il g,. In the event that Collier County designates an ASI around a deficient road Bement that is Predicted to Substantially impacted by the Toll Cats Commercial Center DRI and the ASI dole pot include the DR!. then the ■pulioanh ' development order with Collier County. the SWFRPC and the Department of Community Affairs. pursuant to Section 380.06119). Florida Statutes. AA The applicant shall file a Notice of Chance within sixty (601 days from the date the County creates an ASI for such a lop 051 Ma 85 -6_ Words pnderljned are added; Words struck-through are deleted. I * Notice of Chance. n current traffic analysis and other informationattemptpg to establish that the DR/ is not havina a • substantial impact upon the pertinent road seament. or other Justification for the County's exclusion of the DRI from the ASI. If an AS/ is established for env deficient, road 'moment listed ig ardor that does not inglsde the Toll Gate Commercial Canter DRI. the DR/ shall not SIULLY12LS2X121LAURCLAILYSarlitirdISLAL Adequate Public Facility until the Notice pf chanae_ decision is made by Collier Cavity. if neither DCA_nor SWFRPC participates in the public hearino oe this Notice of Chanao pursuant tq • 80.061191M and the chancre is adopted by collier County. as proposed. or until, any appeal of such decision to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission is resolved. 2, For nurposes of this development order. • the „MI shall be dpened to have a eubstantial impact woe a deficient road segment if its traffic impact, exceed give percent (5%I of the level of service "Dm peak hour. peak season capacity ot the roadway. I, The County shall provide the reauisite public notice and hold a public hearing pn the Notice of Change as exosditiouslv gm Possible. Followina a public hearina. • Collier County shall ismegd the OR Development Order to repord determination whether or not the DR/ Li having a substantial impact upon the deficient road seament or otherwise should not be included within an ASI for the deficient road seament. In malting this determination. the County shall *include the impacts resulting from _all development to occur pursuant to the Certificates of Public Facility. Adeauacv previously issued to the DRY. The amendment to the Development Order ia pmealable pursuant to Suasection 280.06(191 and Section. 380.07. Florida Statutes. • • g, If neither DCA nor SWFRPC Participate ie the public heart= on the Notice of Chance ourmuant to Section 380.05(12iffiu Florida Statutes and the change is • Ig2142AkeC21thirStaiilltYitiL2/212211EL. the DPI malt be issued Certificates of ' public Facility Adeauacv following the • Countvle development order decision. If • either DCA or SWPRPC participate's in the • public hearina. the applicant shall not apply for or be issued Certificates of public_ Facility Adequacy until the • deadline for any appeal of the Collier County decision has expired pursuant to • Section 380.07. Florida Statutes and no • OP ORM 66 appeal has been filed. • -7- 4 - Words Underlined are added; Words streak-through are deleted. I . 1 1}M 111111 11111 M111 1� D. Development Order 84-1, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center hereby amended by adding Section 4.D entitled Drainage/Hater :; Quality/Wetlands to read as follows: Ds DRAINAGE/WATER OUALI"Y/WETLANDS •F },,, A, The proposed changes to the project's surface water {1 management evetem design shalt meet South Florida )later Ftanaaement District priteria in effect at the time of the application for neriai soodd,lfieation ) At the time of the application for permit Of All new contr9l strpcture■ for this protect. jc]udina dimensions and elevations, A baffle (crease and oil intercegsorf shall be included is discharge from the center of thg water column rather than the ton or bottom. 1'he _control structures shall be designed to bleed down no more than 1/2" of the required water quality volume in 24 hours. A V-notch bleeder design is considyred preferable to a rectangular notch design for control structures. Sea Calculations shall be provided at the time oQ application for permit modification which verify that the District's water Quantity and auality criteria are being maintained. including those criteria applied to roadway improvements. R, At the tine of application for Construction and Operatj n Permits for the individual commercial and provide proof to District staff that each site provides dry pre-treatment detention/retention for the first 1/2 inch of runoff. unless the sits applicant prpvidee, reasonable assurances that hazardous materials will not be aenerated. used or stored on the site. ZA At the tine of application for a modification to the existing Districts, permit. a detailed plan for • hazardous mate+a t hand ling and _me gen -- response will be required t,9 be provided to District and collier County staffs. L. The applicant shall undgrtaks a regularly scheduled vacuum aweepina of all internal streets and narking facilities, to be ineored as. practice, • ga If the development should. its the future. •utilize • reclaimed wastewater for irrigation purposes. the i and__created wetlands ponds and th• a surface vR management system are adequately buffered from possible effluent contamination. $,, All protect construction shall take place away fro% proposed buffers. the onsite wetlands and dry detention areas. so as not to affect the intended function of the surface water management system. mgr 051 P*Gs 67 -8- I ); Words Underlined are added; Words struck-through are deleted. 11.1. i y 1- 11111 11111 11111 1 z'' t..1 1L. The e eoration of ll the To cn r urfs Sca water Manacement yste____m iia a endent unen the„_enerson J� Surfaer Manecement f Plan or ce wathe pro4ec shall Henderson Creek Watershed. The aenlicant shall participate in env on-acing or future atferts by Cole County to establish a Countywide surface weer anagement System u I -• - 1 - • 1 - . y- , . .iii - 1 with District cu delines. L. All internal surface water management systems shall be s(t_esidsyp private drainage easements. commnn Areas. uraserves. or shall be identified ae 'pacific tracts on the recorded final plat. The_amnlicant shall confirm to the ■etisfac+•ign joencirs. _and the South Florida Water Management District. that the proposed water ranacemept system will not jmnact habitats of env state or federally listed plant and/or anima; species occurring pnsite. or that such impacts will be mitigated to the benefit of onsite populations of those species. 1i1. The above conditions shall supersede anti conditions contained within the oricinal Toll Cats Development Order which are inconsistent with the above conditions. Any conditions contained within the • • with the above conditions shall remain in force, DA. ail commitments made by the applicant within the Substantial Deviation Application are attached as uhibit 08" and subeecuent sufficiency ' round information. related to Ouestion 22 (Drainagel. and pot in conflict with the above recommendations. is bOsr.by considered tg be part of this Development Ea• The applicants shall describe the status of conditions and mitigation actions required by FDSi; end USACOE peraijs for wetland impacts. within each !�. annual report. 0' C. Development Order 84-1, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center • is hereby amended by adding Section I.E. entitled 'Wastewater "•� Xanag ment/Water Supply" to read as follows: r , WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT/WATER SUPPLt a' L. ror the purpose of potable water conservation. Toll Gate r. .• other water conserving devices. L. For tho purpose of non-notable water conservation. Toll • I.. • / I = • - 1 I • , - • • - 11 , I. - • nog 51►*a 68 ,�; •: Words ynderlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. • • .f. ;, 111111 i to the use of notable water prior to modification o! the proiect'e existina,_,landse ae.,_irriyatien_water use r,`. permit_ However, withdrawals from the ensue lakes and wetlands where miri,Qation is proposed shall net be wetland hvd optic a_ The applicant shall investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed er„to meet the proieetts landecace irrigation de•. nds vrior to permit modification. ▪ Toll_ Gate Commercial ,Center shalt provide verification tp th■ South Florida wager wanapemen District, stthp time_--of application for a modification to the existing landscape irrigation permit shat env proposed ground or surface water wi hdrawal, are revs amble-bl�tie+a +� the public ihtereet .nd w+ll of esult l r „in env adverse Impacts to existing legal the environment. L. The project's proposed water use shall meet South F1 r,. ia_da„Wa er Manaa�fnt District criteri� in effect art the time of oermi anplice ion Li. The mroiect shall obtain potable water. and lost ater if Collier County utilities determines that it has Duffigjent capacity to serve _.he protect. Should Collier County Utilities Division determine that they dQ not have sufficient capacity the ant Aenlich ll either time as Collier County Utilities' service capacity it available to the project. Any interim facilities constructed by the applicant shall bt ponstrpcted tQ Collier County Utilities Division Standards_ and shall he dismantled, at the Appijcantis expense. upon connection to the County f cilities, Whether potable water and wastewater facilities are provided chute or offsite. 'the applicant shall demonstrate to Collier County that adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available at the time a final elan submittal ,Z•+• ha, the Toll Gate Development may be required to utilise treated effluent for irrigation. the applicant shall ensure that onsite lakes, wetlands. and the surface water management system are adequately buffered frot possible effluent contamination. L She applicant shall provide assurance that commercial epd industrial effluents. if aenerated by the prolact. yili be treated separately from domestic wastewater and handled in accordance with rpER criteria. $ , Septic tanks shall not be allowed. except for construction or sales offices. due to the possibility of and industrial portions of the proiect. .• S.2J. • -.•.- •i .- and approved by the Collier County Utilities Division prior to commencement of construction 14-4 ILL All potable water facilities. including any possible 1C: M _.• •, • •A. • i.•. �.' .. .� •A rem• -lon Words Underlined are added; Words struek-through are deleted. s: .S i� 1T,s The_lawest fall y off„water shall jaultiu zed !or alt IL. 21c....attaya_sanditlana_abau_aintarins _randitigni • III 11 I All commitments made by the anplicant. within the ADA 1.1 •4 N. I • 4 - •1 Question 21 fume evptg- Manag t�� and Oueetinn 2 jyater SuDplv1, and nod in conflic with the above recommendations shall be incorporated as conditions for *unravel. • `' • D. Development Order 84-1, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center J. is hereby amended by adding a new Section 4.7. entitled "Housing" to read as'follows: L. moUSI%g • M1 Kt ordinance which would recuire all development. both Development of Regional impact :DR11 Qualified and nom-QR,j Qualified. to contribute to a brparan which addressee Affordable housing concerns. The applicant has agreed to the jsnosition of a housing impact fee for that portion at the project not previously approved and platted. which impact fee would be applicable until such time as the County has adonted an affordable housinc improvement =poem with • nronortionate share funding nschp;e,. which erooram is dated by the Collier County Growth Manaaement Plan to be jn force not later than January 1. 1994. That portion of the Tel/eats Droiect which has not vet been platted and improved shall be subject to the following candi,tiq j L. Bach development within that portion or the oroiect yhich has not been platted and improved at the time of • attention of this Development order :DOA 91-21 shall Day • a fe of 20 cents per scuare foot of crass leasable buildinc area to an Affordable Housina Trust Fund at t time a buildinc permit is filed with the County. The Affordable Heusinc Trust Fusd shall be administered by • , • low and very low income households. This fee shall be terminated at the time Collier County adopts j that. by January 1. 1494. Collier County has not enacted proportionate share fundina mechanism. the twenty cents • per emigre foot fee re + „omen shah - erwina ed S. Development Order 84-1 for the Toll Gate Commercial Center is t'. hereby amended by adding a new Section 4.0. entitled "General 11 ' Considerations" to read as follows: f .1. Y:' F:. ion 051pAGE 7D .11. Words ynderlined are added; Words streak-through are deleted. 1 f °i NIB g, allattialsauwaizuniii tamststal_LusLaustalsianrjumAztusintiathatexangtin A conflict with specific gAditions for proiect aoproval • ADDIOVAL. a„. _ • •• • • • - •. , - I Southwest Florida ggaional Planning _Council, the pnnartment of_fommunity Alfalfa and all affected us • =mutes& • cm The develooment_phasing schedule presented within the MS and as &Ousted to_ data of development Approval shall be incorporated as a condition - .• • • I •. • • •t- Impacts are_ not carrigd out as indicated to the_ extent or in accord with the timing sghedules specified within •,1 • IL, -• 4 I - r She—tallutiazigi2nALlum. • • I • • :1• • f• chances in the conditions underlvina the approval of the development order have occurred or that the development order was based migkidAntiauxinimaratuntgreatign • • • • • I• I ••• . deviation., shall be deemed to have occurred. The used ait ,imanitarincrshisisliat7FaatitR1149.412 • islaitinzLialaatantiaLragionaimmatas. pu. pursuant to Chanter 2110.06;111. the applicant may bg subject to credit for contributions. construction. .4•• •r • .1•1 •t • • • • .1 • d . - • - . . • ■ • "2111133122n"n"1"ttairkerAlitaLinta"...."4"34CCUltribUtionfront••endbleenttotainthursetile • developer for voluntary contributions in excess of the fair share. • P. Development Order 54-1 for the Toll Gate Commercial Center is hereby amended by adding a new Section 4.H. entitled "PUD Document" to • L''14ead as follows: • li,. p.u.n. DocUMENT • . 1 4 J. ii• - is hereby incorporated and attached hereto as Exhibit LDIA. • SDP 1:161.fat 71 -12- • Words Underlined are added; Words sersekthremgh are deleted. ' . • •.-. ' • I . I 1 'r: C. Section 4. D of Development Order 84-1, for the Toll Gate -;r Commercial Center is hereby deleted in its entirety as follower ,:,.' Br eemmitments--speeif&ed-4n-the-PWB--erdinenae-as-sets-ferth-4n 4:. • Inhibit--A--atteehed--hereto--and--by-reference--mode-e--part ,;: thereof-and-es-fei}ewer 1r Beta43ed--site-dra4nage-pans-she#}-be--submitted-te-the hater---Management--Advisory---Beard---for--review*---Be I .. aenstreetion--permits-sha44-be--issued-unless-and--ent4} approve*-ef-the-proposed-eenetreetion-in-aaeerdanee-with • • the--submitted-p&ans4e-granted-by--the-Water-Management • Advisory-Beard' R' . An--Bmeavatien-Permit--shaiA-boo-regained-in--eeeerdanae with-eeanty-erdinenae-Nor-08-ROT-as-amended-by-Ordinance Nor-88-87-for-eenetruetion-ef-the-two-retention-iakear Sr On--site-and--off--site-grenndwater-cendit&ens--she13-be further--investigated-ss-they--route-te-historic--Seem Y': drainags-petterne-and-the-Henderson-creek-Basin' • { 4r m.--develeper-shaft-rsaegn&es-that-this-area-fa-subfest te--fiseding-and-wf44--preaeed-with-eenstraet4en--at-its expo-risk-with-knewiedge-that-0811ier-eeanty-viii-net-be respensibiefor--any--flooding--preb}es-that--may seeurr 5r 8ubfaat--te-PBe4-eppreva3T--the-developer-she}}--prev4ds it.. the-feiiewingr r ar A--southbound--}eft--tarn-}ens--en•ef-951--at-BR-84 before-any vert4fiestes-efeeespeney-ors-Assradr e,` . by A--future--due*--seuthbeund-Serb--turn-faeiAtty--en SR-453-et-8R-84-when-deemed-wereented-by-the-eeanty Engineer' #. e' Separate--kenos--for--Soft-burns!--right-turns--and through-traff&e-movements-en-the-westbound-appreaeh ef-SR-84-t6-eR-95fr • dr The---devaSeper--agrees---is--pe ---a--lsAr---rhaes eentr4 but4 en---in--aeeerdanee--with ---any--SawfulAy adopted-requ3etien-appi4sebts-8e-this-prepertyr 6r Theo-Wt4 34ty-Bivisien+s-stipu3abions-as-found-4n-Exhibit el.-attached' 4t ; Section 7 of the Development Order 84-1 for the Toll Cate :.''; Commercial Center is hereby amended to read as follows: r That this Order shall remain in effect for-a--period-of-ten flu -years-from-ths-effeetfve-date-ef-this-BeveIepment.0rder. until. December ]t. 1991. Any development activity wherein t.f plans have been submitted to the County for its review and approval prior to the expiration date of this Order, may be k, completed, if approved. This Order may be extended by the a- Board of County Commissioners on the finding of excusable delay in any proposed development activity. ,;• I. A Master Development plan dated January, 1981 is attached hereto as Exhibit KCR and by reference incorporated herein. ' UV Cana 72 , .r. Words Underlined are added, Words struek-through are deleted. i - - `may. I. SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT �,.. A. That the real property which is the subject of the Substantial Deviation ADA is legally described as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by reference made a pert hereof. ;,,• B. The application is in accordance with Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. • C. The applicant submitted to the County a Substantial Deviation 1 •Y ' ADA and sufficiency responses known as composite Exhibit 8, and by reference made a -.f part hereof, to the extent that they are not `' inconsistent with the terms �s. and conditions of this order. ,a� . D. The applicant ro p poses the development of Toll Gate •fi' Commercial Center on 100.24 acres of land for commercial, industrial lr and residential tourist uses. 1. kE. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendations of SWFRPC. F. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the A. proposed changes to the previously approved development has been A conducted by the County's departments and the SWFRPC. G. The development is not in an area designated an' Area of ' Critical State Concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, as amended. '' SECTION T5REE: CONCLUSIONS OP LAW `f'" A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order ' constitute a substantial deviation ,r. pursuant to Section "` 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The scope of the development to be '"7 permitted pursuant &:� to this Development Order Amendment includes operations described in the Substantial Deviation ADA, the Substantial Deviation Sufficiency Report, and the Substantial Deviation Second Sufficiency Report which documents by reference are made•a part hereof as composite Exhibit S. t:-: 8. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendations of the SWFRPC. `, C. The proposed changes to the previously approved development =':will' not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives Words Underlineg are added; Words ■!rusk-through are deleted. r 1+ a '�,: of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. %,'. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved development • 'i-{ ,. are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the • 'yi Land Development Regulations adopted pursuant thereto. SECTION FOUR' EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, 4` TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE. • ` A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 84-1 shall remain s '.. in full force and effect, binding in accordance with its terms on all v parties thereto. B. Copies of this Development opment Order 92-1 shall be i '''',= transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Community : ... _. r r iilr r IN . Exhibit A rf .y. II LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' 's ', Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 49 South. Range ~ 26 East. Collier County, Florida: thence along the east 11ne of said Section 35 North 1'-56'-55" West 200.14 feet �: to a point on the north right•of•way line of State Rood 04 (Alligator Alley); r thence along said north right-of-way line, North 890-45'-01" West 331.23 feet to a point of Intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I- ., 1 75), and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described: 1j• thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator • Alley) on the following flue courses: 1) North 89•-45'-01" West 2398.66 feet; 2) South 89'-56'-15" West 1547.43 feet: 3) North 8D•-43'-58" West 709.38 feet: 4) North 39•-52'-42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 10'-24'-33" West 209.94 feet to a point on the East Limited Access. right-of-way line of State Road 93 11-75); thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line of State Road 93 (1-75) on the following nine courses: 1) North 3'-19'-52" East 285.34 fast: 2) North 23'-37'-28" East 149.83 feet: 3) North 64'-12'-39" East 149.83 feet: I 41 North 86'-37'-01" East 778.54 feat; 5) South 117•-55'-12" East 310.82 feet; 6) South 78•-44'-38" East 318.32 feet; 7) South 746-09'-17" East 1199.30 feet: 8) South 73'-00'-33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 feat along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which beers South 75'-35'-07" East 233.67 feet to the north right-of-way tine of State Road 64 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; being a part of south 1/2. Section 35. Township 49 South, Range 26 East. Collier County. Florida: '•y. subject to easements and rutrictions of record: • containing 69.40 acres of land more or less: • '�• bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map ,;C for State Road 93 (I-75). .u!" ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING . .4:,' Description of part of Section 35. Township 49 South. i7. Range 26 East, and pert of Section 2. Township 50 South. Range 26 East, II. Collier County,.Florida A'.. COMMENCE at an Iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of sold Section } 2; thence North 69' 45' 01" West, 337.83 feet along the North tine of ,i said Section 2 for a POINT OR BEGINNING: thence South 00' 02' 19" ' East. 59.98 feet; thence South 89. 57' 41" West. 2,300.70 feet: thence on a course traversing from said Section 35, South 89` 56' 02" West, OP' 20' 34" West.eWes thence 705.25 feet to the Easterly�Limited fAccess RAY Une of 0, S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South td' 24' 33" East, 209.94 A.• feet; thence South 39' 52' 42" East, 209.91 feat: thence South 80' 43' sr East, 709.35 feet; thence North 69. 56' 10" East, 1,547.43 feet i. thence South 89' 45' 01" East. 2.396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access R/YY Line of S.R. 93 103175-24091; thence South 00. OZ' ' 19" East 200.00 foot, to the POitfT OF 1SEG1NNiNG. Less and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. { 4.. • Containing 30.835 acres. more or less. UPI 051,gt 75 ar' The entire project area is 100.235 acres. • • • V:. 11111 Al NM rr• ' y t Ant.l i n 'F••. LEGAL DES( If •' . :; • ‘ Commencing at the southeast corner el Settler, ;. f,+•• .iv •1:.weh. Rs,,.. )1',�•, 26 East. Collier County, Florid.: •, thence along the east line of said Section 33 HE,. i 1• .• -•,t 200.1[:ri... tx. tea point on the north right-of-way line of Slat R• :64 !mitigator Ailey:, : ' thence along said north right-of-way line. Herd •: -ib'-01"tent 331.23 feat i .'l' to a point of Intersection of said north right-aha.. line of State Road 03 (l- +.! 731. and the POINT OP BECINNING of the pored I.;.r.tln described: thence centime along and right-of-wiry hoe 01 Mate Read 14 (Alligator Alley) on the following five course's: I 1) North 116-11S'-0t"West 2300.66 het: 2) South 111.-36•-ti"lint 1307.63 feel: ' 31 North 60•-02•411"West 701.31 feet: 41 North 31••12'-42"West 200.51 feet: ' 5) North 10•-20'-33•West 209.10 feet to a point on the • East Limited Access, right-of•way fine of State Reed 93 . 11-ills thence continue along said Limited Access. right-of-only fins of State Road 53 11.75) en the following nine courant 1) North 3••i!'-52"East 21334 feet: • 2) North 23'-37'-21" East 143.53 CMS 31 North 10•-12br Eat 101.03 feat: •• • 4) North 06•-37'•01" fest 771.30 feats 5t South 17•-95'-12" um 311.12 feet: Si South 711•-410-31"East 311.32 feet: . . 71 South 70•-0!'•17"Hat 1T10.33/eat: 1) South 73•-00'-3i"East 1100.E feet: 11 souUxuterly 233.67 feet along the ors of p circular curve concave to the nertMwt. having 5 radius of 111.2116 fed. subtended by ` a chord which beers South 75!•35'-D7• Ent 233.67 feet to the north right-of-way line of Stste Reed 64 lAlilgeter Alley): and tin PoinC of Bsginntng er the pared hrreln described:, being■pert of south 112. Beetles 3S. Township 4!South, Range 26 East. Copier County, Florida: • • subject to easements end restrictions of record; containing 61.40 sores of land more or fns: ' • ,' bearings sebased enFlorida Department of Tranepertatien right-of-way map i Road Mr.-, ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING . • Dasaription of part of Section 35. Township 41 Sou , 1,;: ', Range 26 Eest, and part of Section 2. Township N Smith. Range 26 East. �.tr • Collier County. FIrlde • ' COMMENCE et'em iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said Section f•, 2: thence North 19. 49'01"Wes. 337.63 feet oiling the North fins of • sold Section 2 for a POINT OP BEGINNING: thence South 00" 02' 10" East. Nap leek thence South 19. 17'41••West. 2,300.70 reels thence an • a ceurae traversing from odd Section 76. South 619 S6'02"Wnt, „ 2,001.74 feet/ thence North 4S' 40' t6"West. 71.56 feat; thence North • :?,. SI• 21'34"West. 701.21 feet to the Enter*Limited Access R/W Line of • S.R. 051 ISectien 03175-2001): thence South 10. 24'330 East. 310.14 r feels thence South 3P 62'42"Ent. 203.11 feet: thence South 10' 03' . 51" Eat. 701.31 feet: thence North h• 66' 15"East. 1,147.03 feet: ... thence South 11. 49,01" East, 2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access 11W Lino of S.R. 93 103175^24031s thence South 00. 03' I9" East. 200.00 feat to tin POINT OF DEGINNING. ,1, Less and except the Ent 100.00 feet thereof. p( ,'" Containing 30.133 acres. more or less. The entire project area Is 100.235 acres. • 051 PAGE i MOM 1111. OM -, . . fi- .[ ••• ....".. ..t. ..,,,,. •i • ,AX.. ' 4-,.., i. . 1 - ''F.;' . 1,1 : (:: - • • k,!, ;', • i4 .. • . , r f,.• . ...)...e: • . ' .. .:• l • . ,..,' .. : . .. r• .• • '1'.;..•i• • •;1 if , 1 .1 • . • . : „ . ■ 1 . . 1, , .•'''':'..t I . 1• •''''''.C.. . •r.... ' I .•P. ...'t . . • !. 'W.:',,' . . . . ...,• .. , . } • . ' . ,,,,. f '' t: '• ..• • , ) :1t.....; • . l * :a: • .,,,,e... . .:,t'i•.• ' . . •. • . . . . EXHIBIT B '.. I ,•,,- .• SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION SUFFICIENCY REPORT AND 1 -..-.. . ,„,.• 4 .1,....... SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION SECOND SUFFICIENCY REPORT I ''.•', i,',1'.,.' ATTACHED BY REFERENCE HEREIN. ,,-„.••.';• .. ,1.. , I:,• '•.4 .. .. . • . ' '''...-• . L I 051na 77 . •.• •i•. '-'.., i.. . : '• 1 'it•••• • . , .% • ,'riev; - s . I 1, ,1 1 •• ,,ii■ ,1. ' ,,...'...',. I 1 , . ' . • ! , I , k , ----..---......— .......,,.,—.....---- .... , r . i S ' ! imkikiiiitni:: I d _ .. • g n � • H H 1. [. li . ::: iiii ) I II( Z higlimmm .. 71/11 we r ..11■ ...... .trft11) ', , .. '' 1-."''' ,. ll I , PHASE 1 ..... MN aw E I 7 -0 1121I, 0* CI• In pa a N © 1©1 CjI VC ./. "r :CD CI CII gffiniginfell . ' -- j 1 - tee aaa4 t I p • E. ►111m7I MCI MIL 1ZtrY, n0 M1 a 4Y AMA%wlq[WL I • + ... 7,1.. 7. ...' . .. ■,...1,,., ...,. • , ...! ,..., .'''.'•'''/' 4,• ...,', PLANNED UNIT DliELOPNENT •', r.'• TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER , ,- .. . , . .. • ',.:.'.'i.. .• ..ii.":. PREPARED BY WILLIAM R. wins, AICP • VINES, & ASSOCIATES, INC. 715 TENTH STREET SOUTH i NAPLES, FLORIDA 33940 1..,e.• ..,,,,. . Os- (B13) 262-4164 :'i- . •.1. , ..-. ' . • • . • . . . ,i . . ,a,.. . .L DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC3717ME7-- -- : ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-10 4 ..A AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL. -.6.:. ...... ........ „-,.. .--.■•■- . . •-....--.■--_- k . -......-...-...._- f..., ii .( . i ,..• , Mr 051t 79 i . 1 . .,,,•,..,, ..,. ,.•. ,1 . . v..,..,. P, • . MOIDE • "D" it • 1 • 1,1 .• ,..., : - • ..,, -•:, . .. 4.!-'... ,f - - ..01,..... ,,•!.. . .S..... . .A I , 4 V • . ■ .:.'• ..;, • . . . ‘..1 4.. ...... - ■. • "MI 1111 • •• • .• • • !:`.!••• lapLE OF CONTENTS • • LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE jj STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE jjj SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP 6 DESCRIPTION 1-1 .• .•,•; SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS •• • SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN FOR PARCEL "A" 3-1 • SECTION ry COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOR 4.,■1 PARCEL "S" SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMNTS = • • • • •'■, ..112• ";.r. 05ingt 80 II • • • 1.. ri't• • '4* •te • "'• . • go, Ty' , M ••y, ~: Ian'F . Ian OP paZjOITS)1113 TMILEa• h+\:',fir. %S. :- nattBIT A PUD Master Plan 6.1 . • 1"' . TABLE I Schedule of Development 2-2 • • Ik '1, . • } • 4i k, .1.,. • 1 uor 0511 E 81 '. fa. ; ` � _ii• • l i i I , ..;'. i¢ ' STATEMENT 07 COMPLIANCE ,;',•` The development of approximately 100.23 acres of property in +i Collier County and within an Interchange Activity Center, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Tollgate Commercial • omp .-v1',! n; . Center, will be in. compliance with the planning goals and t ;: _ objectives of Collier County as sat forth in the Growth Management A, Plan and it's provisions for Interchange Activity Center development. This compliance includes: Activity Center Project ii4"• 1. The subject property t. j prapart is located in an area identified as an Interchange Activity Center in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan for Collier County. • 3. Interstate Activity Centers are the preferred locations for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development' . : .:. . activities. 3. The subject tract is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of CR-951 and CR-84. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial/industrial activities. 4. The project is in compliance with all applicable County <• regulations. In addition, the project complies with the Growth Management Plan with the adoption of the Plan ,,; amendment which allows for specifically approved heavy business/light industrial uses to be developed in designated r : interstate activity centers. 4' 5. The project will be 'served by a complete range of services r and utilities as approved by the County. ,It.. 6. . The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the t., internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards contained i..7 herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and naturalised open features which serve as project amenities. . 8. The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan and the existing PUo '•`" document as approved. In addition, the project shall be developed in accordance with all Collier County regulations ' in effect at the. time of Final SDP or building permit application. . :•;L . . . 9. Sind the owner's successor in title to any commitments made under in this document. • V' ,, -iii- ' Boor D5lncc 82 4 .: 4 . I i C'r•. f "tirr' .r:• iA•+ SECTION I • PROPERTY OWNERS;EEP AND DESCRIPTION • t • pII pR OSE L•`'• The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Tollgate Commercial Center. 1.3 MAL DEBCRIPTIOU Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Townshi 49 South, Range 26 Nast, Collier County, Florida; p thence along the east line of said Section 35 North • 18-56'-55" West 200.14 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); thence along said north right-of-way line, North 89•-45'-01" West 331.23 feet to a point of intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I-75), and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley) on the following five courses: 1) North 898-45'-01" West 2398.66 feet; 2). South 89•-56'-16" West 1547.43 feet; 3) North 800-43'-58" West 709.38 feet; 4) North 39•-52'-42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 10•-24'-33" West 209.94 feat to a point on the East Limited Access, right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I-75); thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line of State 93 (I-75) on the following nine courses: • 1) North 30-19'-52" East 288.34 feet; 2) North 230-37'-28" East 149.53 feet; • •s 3) North 64•-12'-39" East 149.83 feet; 4) North 866-37'-02" East 778.54 feet; 5) South 874-55'-12" East 318.82 feet; •� 6) South 780-44'-38" East 318.32 feet; w • 7) South 74'-09'-17" East 1199.30 feet; 8) South 730-00'-33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 feet along the arc of a circular • curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of • : • 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 754-35'-o7" East 233.67 feet to. the north right-of-way line of State•Road 84 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; 1-1 wor U51►MGE 8a • fir ivi • i. a wr 111111 . E i :il. • 4 f ail•..• 4�. being a part of south 1/2, Section 35, Township 49 South, ' ,," Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; 1 K.',+'': subject to easements and restrictions of record; containing 69.40 acres of land more or less; bearings are based an Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road 93 (I-75). ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING • Description of part of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and part of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 t East, Collier County, Florida COMMENCE at an iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said f Section 2; thence North 89' 45' 03" West, 337.83 feet along 11 ' the North line of said Section 2 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; : thence South 00. 02' 19" East, 59.98 feet; thence South 89" 57' 41" West, 2,300.70 feet; thence on a course traversing from said Section 35, South 89. 56' 02" West, 2,448.74 feet; l:• thence North 45. 46' 16" West, 71.58 feet; thence North 01' • 28' 34" West, 705.25 feet to the Easterly Limited Access R/W ' ? Line of S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South 10. 24' 33" East, 209.94 feet; thence South 39. 52' 42"• Last, 209.91 feet; thence South 80. 43' 58• East, 709.38 feet; thence North 89. 561 16" East, 1,547.43 feet; thane South 69. 45' x�; , 01" East, 2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited ''',..+- Access R W Line of S.R. • 02' 1Q" East, 200.00 feet to the POINT BEGINNING.thence 00 02 Lass and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. '`,t. Containing 30.835 acres, more or less. •• The entire project area is 100.235 acres. • . li, Number of acres devoted to various categories of land use Development area 70.72 j Water Management area /7.84 4 Road Right-of-Way 6.7 • F.B.L. Easement 4.98 GENERAL LOCATION OF PRO.ECT SITE 1 •i'•., . •,,;, Tollghte Commercial Center is located in the southeast I,,,> quadrant of the Interstate I-75/CR-951 interchange, �• approximately five miles east of the Naples Airport at the eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84). 1-2 ; � ..0 Minn 84 4 ::''"4 . . I • , y; - _ fv ,J1 4 ti �7y. 't 1.3 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP fr The subject property is currently owned the unified control of Tollgate Commercial by a nd Florida General Partnership. •r il 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OP PROPERTY AREA +*;. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is •!.. designated Interstate Activity Center on the Collier ,`� County Growth Management Plan. ' r B. CURRENT ZONING: The project site is currently zoned. PUD. C. MISTING LAND USE: At the present time the sits is unoccupied except for a 104 room motel. D. AD.TACENT LAND USE: The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The northwest and southwest corners of CR 951 and SR 84 are presently used as ' $: gasoline service stations. r The properties north of the 1-75 right-of-wey and the properties south of CR 84 are vacant. '1 1.8 pETBICAL DESCRIPT!o rr • . 4.• The elevation of the project site varies from 9.8 feet to , 11.6 feet. Tollgate Commercial Center lies within Zone X as identified on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone X is identified as those areas between limits of the 100-year 1; flood and 500-year flood. This mean' that no development % will be occurring within the 100-year flood prone area. A. $OILS: There are three types of soil cover on the ,4' , project site. They are Arzell fine sands, Ken fine sands and Pompano fine sands. The distribution of these • soil types is shown in Map E. B. VEGETATIyE COVER: A breakdown of the vegetative cover of the project area is as follows: 1. rys, 1-3r 051 PAS 85 4, tt. t I I I I 0 ,- UM MI MN . : e 1 e a ' • ri . =. VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE �� '' Pineland 1.00 ,0 Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia 4.21 + ' Transitional Zone/Cypress 29.40 , Functional Wetland 9.40 Cabbage Palm Heads 0.30 °.r Improved/Platted 30.67 • Cleared/Filled Unplatted Former R/M 21.66 • .. F.P.L. R/W --2 Total 100.24 I , , ' There are no unique features of the vegetation. All 1 '0% species and associations are "typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods of level sandy areas of Collier ;, county. `; C. WILDLIFE: Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks, nests, etc. consisted of the representative species, • such as raccoon, snakes and wading birds, which normally .. :, occur in an habitat such as the Tollgate Commercial TA. Center site. t .`f; No endangered or threatened species were observed on the ;,'''. site. f .1.' D. HISTORICAL.' OR- ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: John Seriault, I a Archaeological i Field Representative of the S.W. Florida i Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist . on the tract. . S. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT: Waste water treatment is being , • �: provided by the Collier County Sewage Treatment System. t Temporary on-site wastewater treatment facilities for :' which all necessary permits have been ranted may be '-o-p installed during any period of time in which sewage treatment service is not available from Collier county. F. WATER MANAGEMENT: The Water Management Plan provides for site runoff transport to a system of hardwood '! ' forest, marsh, and open water ponds. The Water Management Plan is designed to meet SFRMD and County 't criteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be• designed for the 25-year 3-day rainfall event. The ' finished floor elevations will be established by the 100 . year-zero discharge design event. i'» 't• 1-4 lf UP O51MU 86 'S ..z r; iM ,° i t I 0 .. I:' 'a O. WATER SUP •Y. Potable water is being supplied by the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Non-potable water Utilized for landscape irrigation and i. other non-human consumptive uses will be procured from on-site wells, or from the County treated sewage effluent distribution system. -IV, ,SOLID WASTE: Solid waste is being disposed of at the P., Collier County Sanitary Landfill. Collection is provided by Waste Management of Collier County, a franchised hauler. (1.. I. f,LECTRICITY: Electricity is being provided by the Florida Power A Light Company, Inc. .7. pOLICE PROTECTIONt Police protection is provided by the , t Collier County Sheriff Department. a K. FIRE PROTECTIONS Fira ,� Golden Gate Fire Control protection DistriCtided the fir{ L. TELEPHONE: Telephone service is provided by United ': Telephone of Florida. p • C1V. !` 1 051,E 87 1 1-5 i 'e,„ .4, • 4 !. I i "R s ..�� SECTION II k` PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS s`' 2.1 PURPOSE • The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally 1 . ' describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 gL .: A. Regulations, requirements and references for development 1 of Tollgate Commercial Center shall be in accordance 11.'., with the contents of this document. Where these r`T regulations fail to provide development standards, then • the provisions of the most similar district in the • Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. • 0;:: X. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms t shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code. • .• C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall become part of the i" ' • regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD ' site may be developed. • !. D.. Unless specifically waived through variance or waiver }•;' provisions within this PUS, those applicable regulations • �;" not otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect. 2. Each tract, as identified on the Master Plan, shall require the submittal, review and subsequent approval of- • a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of a Final .,0 Local Development Order. 2.3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND i'. nAES •',',. A. The project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan. .'l' . . . 2-1 SIP 051n.- gg 1. 1� . i1 ' J3�S 1j. fJ :re 1111 111111 INIII . • . ,. 1 • . A..; .o. DCREDCyE 9! DEVELOPMENT• ;'f'4.' • • t•• • Project development is underway and will continue to build- , ..-: Out. l'` .'' The following schedule indicates the anticipated start and completion dates for the various project development Phases. " eve `• Phase boundaries are indicated on the Master Development pment_ TABLE I � • ' .; % OF • . PHASE ACREAGE SITE START COMPLETE I 54.51 54.4 1988 1993 II 26.44 26.4 1992 1995 • III 19.2k 19.2 1993 1996 TOTALS 100.24 100.0 A. Table I is a schedule of Development with the approximate acreage of the total project indicated. The Y, arrangement of these land areas are shown on the POD ' . Master Development Plan (Exhibit "A"). The Master Development Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. Design criteria and layout illustrative on the Master Development Plan and other " exhibits supporting this project. It shall be •' understood that these exhibits are to remain flexible so the final design may satisfy development objectives and be consistent with the project development, as sat 0:. forth in this document. Minor changes to the master plan shall be subject to the y provisions of section 2.7.3.5, Division 2.7, Article 2 �, r of the Collier County Land Development Code. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for drive patterns, parking layout and '' requirements, and development parcel size and s . ; configuration. .r, 's t %Ina 89 • � ' 2-2 iI . 4 ` ��°b " � • tt'.,. • 'r � .n Yr, • A.. 1 . 1 I • j . a. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A", such utility and other easements ' as are necessary shall be established within or along the various tracts. 2.4. )!ELATED PROJECT P!J,iL PPROVAL REOUIREME$TS t. A. •Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, for all or part ,,, . of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements {•: shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD . 4. r Master Plan, and the Collier county Land Development c Code. P. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan, constitutes f, ' the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or ° 2• concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision, • P- Plat, if applicable, shall be submitted for any area to ..T. be subdivided. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting l • aws of the State of Florida. C. The development of any tract or parcel contemplating fee simple ownership of land shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with requirements of Division 3.2, Article 43-' 3, of the Collier County Land Development Code, prior to the submittal of construction• plans and plat for any :;. portion of the tract or parcel. • D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of i- _ infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common '•. facilities. :',- E. The developer or subsequent owner of any platted parcel •. V . or platted tract shall, prior to application for a building permit, submit,a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Preliminary Subdivision Plat for that tract or parcel to .:. . the Development Services 'Department for approval for 44'. applicable development subject to the provisions of ?.; Division 3.3, Article 3 of the Collier County Land ' Development Code. ' ` D5irit 90 . 2-3 • I'.' • • r •*:;/.' •i!.: • ( . Ylc.!;. 17' r,, • 1 . 2.3 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD FLA8T!R PL ►. ,Y. Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 2.7.3.5.1, Division 2.7, Article 2 of the Collier County Land t • Development Cods. ';` 2.6 IITATTONB or PLANNED UNIT DuvrLOPMENT APPRovAj, . • As provided for within Section 2.7.3.4, Division 2.7, Article • 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code. - - 2.7 'DIMING PLACES • As provided for in Section 3.2.8.3.14, Division 3.2, Article ;: • ' 3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.8 pvD MONITOAINC An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to "' Section 2.7.3.6, Division 2.7, Article 2 of the Collier �r County Land Development Code. ti • 4 rY • ` j , poor 051rwc 91 • 2-4 • 1 6 i v. • :+r' MP IIIII MI . SV '..+ • SECTION III i iH •i COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN . 3.1 E12$, osm .'; The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas so designated on Exhibit "A", as "A" ." Parcels. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL "A" • 'y : ' It is the intent of this document that "A" designated ' A=r development parcels be used for commercial purposes which .,. serve the motoring public using Interstate I-15 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an • ' • areawlde nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokelee urban areas. Further it is the intent of this document that "A" designated development parcels shall be used in accordance with all current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County "' - Board of CountyCosmissioners. • i, 3.3 ES EMTTD No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected, • `l. altered or used, or land used, in whole or • part, for other . i.. than the following: , • r. A. PrincinAl, Uses . 3 No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be +.'• erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part for other then the following: ' (a) Automobile service stations including engine tune- , ups and minor repairs, and car wash facilities . which are accessory uses. ` ' ,(b) Banks and financial institutions, business and ' professional offices. (e) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. (d) Convention and exhibition halls. , `'k 3-1 WV 05in t 92 .. • i : rf • Mw r _ . • • i i;`I. (0) De partuent stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops • 'c.:f and dry goods stores. • ' ' (f) Electronic games and furniture sales. ''','/ (g) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. tT'`:' • • (h) Motels; hotels and other transient lodging . !•: facilities. (i) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food ` ;.�j restaurants. • ,. (j) Shopping centers. (k) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. • " (1) Supermarkets. :_ (s) Variety stores; vehicle rental-automobile and ' U-haul type of vehicles and equipment including - A outside display; veterinary offices and clinics; no `A.,' outside kenneling. �t (n) Any other commeroiai or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which ' the Planning Imp mentation Director determines to be compatible in the district. '•;' b. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures • .. 1 ' (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily . Ih •• associated with the permitted principal uses and •e- structures. (b) Caretakers residence. (0i MI r MI { . !, • , •t r• G/ • ff • (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: " ' (a) Front Yard - Twenty-five y- (25) last plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over ''_ fifty (50) feet. ,. (b) Side yard - None or a minimum of five (5) feet with ' �; unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for • non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) tut for ` motels, hotels and transient lodging facilities .. plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building i'.:... height over fifty (50) feet. , '. (c) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. ' (d) waterfront - Twenty-five (2S) feet from the normal .: water line of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. • (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. ;.,r,. (S) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: one thousand (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor, • except that gasoline service stations and. other �" '• permitted areas for which the principal activity does not occur`in a structure shall not require a minimum ' floor area. • • x . (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-mix (26) units per gross acre +• of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging ., facilities. (7) Distance Between Principal Structures on same site: h. one-half the sum of the heights. • • (8) Signs: As required by Division 2.5 of the Land + Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading c Requirements: As required by Division 2.3 of the ••, collier County Land Development Code.• ~ b' . _ (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: As required . Collier county Land Development Code. by the PA. • .:• (11) Outside Merchandise Storage and Displaying: unless • ;_ specifically authorized by this PUD document or by an approved Site Development Plan, outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited. `',� 3-3 Ti r, • " Boer 051 ma 94 V ,.'p• • T . . :.9X' • t SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES 4.1 pURPOSl, ' The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial/Industrial Useh and development standards that ,.;,, will be applied to the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as "3" Parcels. 4.2• F89ELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL "H" . 2,' • It is the intent of this document that "B" designated ' ; development parcels by used for both "A" designated uses and . for • the sale, service, transportation, storage and t distribution of goods and service to the traveling public on • .�, 1-73 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems. ∎• A major function of these parcels is to serve as a focal point for the arrival of goods from other points of the region and country and then be processed for distribution to the local trade market. • It is intended that inside storage and warehousing along with limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building • ', and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, • smoke, noise or vibration be permitted. • Further, it is the intent of this document that "B" designated Parcels be used in accordance with all of the • a'"'' current Federal, State and county regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as em • • specified otherwise in this document or as may be approved • . otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. ' ' • 4.3 USES PERNITTEQ No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part of other than the following: A. principal Uses: (a) Any principal use or structure permitted on "A" ';' designated development parcels. 3: • ¢; (b) Assembly operations in an enclosed building. . 4-1 i:; mg 051►MA 95 Ja: • ' f ;, �, ,3 . : Y., . - I i r.• (c) Building supplies and contractors storage I , ';'. ' facilities; bulk storage yards not including junk or salvage yards. c':' (d) Car wash, communications service and equipment • , • repair. "J ii (e) Freight movers and storage. iid;R, (f) Laboratories, research, design and testing; laundries; lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing • • (include food processing but not abatoir; packaging • or fabricating in e.completely enclosed building). (g) Miscellaneous uses such as express office; . telephone exchange: motor or bus or truck or other .44. transportation terminal and related uses; r motorcycle sales, service and repair; museums and tourist attractions. • (h) New and used car sales, service and repair including outside display. 1( (i) Offices, general purpose. • • '�; (j) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing establishments and similar uses. f (k) Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and • ‘....q... which the Planning Implementation Director determines'to be compatible in the district. S. Permitted Accessory Uses a Struoturest v (1) Any accessory use or structure customarily associated with the permitted uses and structures. • • C. permitted Provisional Uses and Structures: (1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business - ;y.; one (1) per business. (2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet A ' gross floor areas in the principal building. . . ; 4-2 • ti 11/r °M AU 96 • r p . • • a . K3.i' C MOO 1 F Ar 4.4 DE9ELO2IRENT ST RDp .,.' (1) Minimum Lot Areas lien thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building•setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. J.? . (b) Side Yard - Non, or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building �•�._ height over fifty (50) feet. Attached residences y shall be treated as non-residential. (c) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal level of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structural One thousand J;,: (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted uses for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotel, motel and transient lodging r facilities. (7) Distance Between Structures: One-half the sum of the s`; • (8) Signs: As required by bivision 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Hp O51MI 97 4-3 rS' 1 ' • • • l .. • .t.\ r.: . i ...',t (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: As required by the • Collier County Land Development Code. (li) Merchandise Storage and Displays Unless specifically authorized this roved t. 4 .. by th s :PW document or an approved Site Development Plan, or of a nature which is permitted • generally, outside storage or diplay of merchandise is generally, , • tz�' • . II-,:, 1W 051 PAGE 0 r•.» ;.i'0 • • � :N, 4-4 • • i lh'y • y•: SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS fi'=.. 5.1 pummel The purpose of thin•Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. ' • 5.2 BUD MASTER PLAN j: iF. A. The puo Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. S. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master Development Plan shall be interpreted as preliminary and understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable ' requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. +• .• D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locationi• of all • improved facilities, and location and treatment of butter areas. 5.3 JNGINEERINQ A. The developer and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy ,., • the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final local t ' development order. t. B. The project shall be platted in accordance with the Collier County Subdivision Code to define the • right-of-way, tracts, and water management areas as shown on the master plan. 5-i . : . ,,a mina 99 • • • S i •.s' t .4 j i C. Landscaping shall not be placed within the water • % management areas unless specifically approved by project 'r Review Services. I- D. Provide a landscape buffer along the entire southern • property line in accordance, with Section 2.4.7.4 of the t( Collier County Land Development Code. . ?; R. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during it's permit review process, require a natural I�,: vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any .•},t jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation ; tract, the butter shall not be located within the ' ; boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the • South Florida Water Management District. It shall be • • created as a separate platted tract or as a butter easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract • shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's • •• homeowners association or like entity far ownership and . . maintenances responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes. ' F. Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.4.16.6 - Dead and streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 feet: Waived } to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. t.;: G. Land Development Regulations, Section 3.2.8.4.16 - Ail . local streets within commercial subdivision shall be ' l'.. designed according to the typical section for collector 1':. streets contained in the county Standards. Waived s'• subject to right-of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the rt, pavements structure to meet collector standards. ; out 051?Am 100 y r 5-2 •r? • • :,,,x: 'nr' r•. • ;. • r N. Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.4.7 - Easements: ,." Utility easements will be rovided as! Collier County utility easements (c.U.E.) at eaeminimum of fifteen (15) feet. " I. Land Development Coda, Section, 3.2.8.3.17 - Sidewalks: Not waived since existing phase already has sidewalks ,+ ,:. and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrians access purposes. 5.4 UTILITIES A. water distribution, sewage collection and transmission r and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to • serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. ' C. The on-site water distribution system to serve the project must be connected to the existing water main on Tollhouse , Drive and/or CR-84 rights-of-way consistent ' with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the • ' project. During design of these facilities, dead end • mains shall be eliminated by looping the internal pipeline network. D. The utility construction documents for the project's • sewerage system shall be prepared so that all sewage • flowing to the County's master pump station is rr i00c V51 PAGE 101 • • . ;r:• . • • 5-3 • • • • .�� tt4y it t r , transmitted by one (1) main on-site pump station. Due to the design and configuration of the master pump r=, station, flow by gravity into the station will not be • possible. The Developer'. Engineer shall meet with the County staff prior to commencing preparation of construction drawings, so that all aspects of the A•?` sewerage system design can be coordinated with the ,;. County's sewer master plan. •h;. E. The existing off-site water facilities of the District ;A;•`. must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this 4`.' project and reinforced as required, if necessary, C. consistent with the County's Water Master Plan to insure ^'' that the District's water system can hydraulically ``• provide a sufficient quantity of water to meet the i;'• anticipated demands of the project and the District's existing committed capacity. F. The existing off-site sewage transmission facilities of' '.t• the district must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to 4. serve this project improved as required outside the w,N:: projects boundary to provide adequate capacity to . transport the additional wastewater generated without adverse impact to the existing transmission facilities. 1::: 5.5 RATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERINQ ,.. ' A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and'utility • plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for • review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by • Project Review Services. B. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the t • requirements of Collier County Right-of-Nay ordinance A: No. 12-91. 1 `.';•='. , C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed °L;, + lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier `q County Land Development Code. The standards related to L depths may be modified in accordance with DER and ACRE :, permits. • D., Each building site will be required to provide a minimum e. 1/2 inch of dry pre-treatment on site unless otherwise ' � waived by South Florida Water Management District. ` gook Mina 102 • • ti K • • mom IOW IIII -.:.. s 6 ZWv=Ratngau_ TAL • I ,e. A. All jurisdictional wetlands and mitigation areas on-site shall be designated as conservation/preserve tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants similar • to or as per Chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. B. In the case of mitigation off-site any purchase must be V within the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed Lands (CREW) or other areas approved for mitigation by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The ultimate transfer of deed(s) of land(a) to Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands must occur prior to final construction plan/plat approvals. %: C. Control structures on-site shall be constructed in {`p accordance with state and Federal permits. in II' 1.7 A. Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until � � approval of the proposed construction in sccordanbe with • .� the submitted plans is granted by Project Review ' ' Services. s • D. Design and construction of all improvements shall be - subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of t" the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. S ' C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed •' ! lake(s) in accordance with Division 5.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The standards related to :lam: depths may be modified in accordance with DER and ACOE permits. D. A copy of SFWMD Permit or Early Work Permit is required .f ' prior to construction plan approval. "I.• 11!1 E. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum x�.,. 1/2 inch of dry pre-treatment on site, unless otherwise it... • waived by South Florida Water Management District. r • 1 UP,. 03 �.T,:; • ■ • . �• 1 , Y.....• • ": i; lI : 0,. 5.1 ZR YSPoRTATUm L`•+;•: A. The final location of major access points along Davis i,t : Boulevard shall be determined during the SNP process. . t' ;'. Such major access points shall provide primary access and internal road circulation and shall typically include turn lane improvements based on projected 4x0` traffic conditions. Secondary access points between Davis Boulevard and individual parcels shall be prohibited unless approved consistent with Ordinance ? 82-91 as may be amended and with the following access control criteria: t;. 1. safety • 2. proper geometric design 3. affects on the capacity of Davis Boulevard 4. traffic volumes using the proposed access point 5. other roadways providing access to the site 6. the combined affect of access to any and all tracts both within this PUD and adjacent PUD's 7. spacing of access points Collier County reserves the right to close any approved 47 A Ifr secondary access to and from Davis Boulevard should it at any time be found to create a traffic hazard or to •s adversely affect the capacity or level of service of • f,, that roadway. •��- B. The road impact fee shall be as sat forth in ordinance 85-55, as amended, and shall be paid at the time ' building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by tit , the Board of County Commissioners. -9' C. Access improvements shall not be subject to impact foe • credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. •?'f • D. Al). traffic control devices used shall conform with the •! "•"' .. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by *If - Chapter 316.0747 Florida Statutes. 41 , TOLLGATE PUq DOCUMENT/rid 44.74,- boor O51 tut 104 y. •,'. • ... 5-6 �y 4. 3 y` ,O Ilor, ..,.:„...„, - ...,... . . . . . _ 1 .:.1z.,:::...::::. ' -.: ..,-... -6' -• '1 a �. t .. ra• r O� D { le C.R. I :I::: . lif III ro • Z ji s PHA rT4r�' I .ao ,�, as ....,.•swa 1 EWE `tea'' r ©ai 9aaa ec-Wrichlen canna onto . c"'. T 1 .- 01 t n 1 I /4" w�mtJ I Y Mu MKL tlLf K mektsr[. • I • �L ' Vines&Associates Inc Urban planning•tend planning Wham Ft Wm.preeldent member.AICP •r.-':•y ,'' 71f tenth street south ' ", "ri. nsples Betide 33940 a13102•41o4 February 10, 1992 Mr.Michael Volpe • County Commission Chairman b,•. l Collier County Government Complex 3301 East Temiemt Trail Naples,Florida 33962 1 1'.: Dear Mike: 'otlii. have discussed the suggestion that you made regarding modification to the'Housing 'fi ' section of the Tollgate Development Order with the project owners and with the "• project attorney,Don Pickworth. All agree that they prefer the language set forth In ; the draft Development Order which hos been furnished to the Board. If.however,It 9 Is necessary to modify the language to conform it to the suggestion you made in order ` to secure Board approval,they would agree to the attached adjusted language. Sincerely, r; •r;e;' William Ft.Vines T.� 14, . WRV/cbm• Enclosure ? BOGS 051 PAGE 106 „4 fj,•• �t. i jjf L i i DE DAVIDSON F N G I N F E R I N G 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 • Naples,FL 34104 • P: (239)434.6060 F: (239)434.6084 www.davidsonengmeering.com MEMORANDUM June 10, 2015 TO: Nancy Gundlach,CollierCountyGrowth Management,Zoning Division FROM: Jessica Harrelson,Project Coordinator REVIEWEDBY: Frederick Hood,AICP,Senior Planner RE: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA-PL20150000281 and PETITION DRI-PL20150000545 A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on June 4th, 2015 at the Collier County South Regional Library. The meeting was properly advertised in the Naples Daily News and started at 5:30 pm. Copies of the presentation notes and the PUD document,were made available for all attendees. The following individuals associated with the review and presentation of the project were present: • Frederick Hood, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Jessica Harrelson, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Nancy Gundlach,Collier County • Rob Johnson,Sky Angel Center, LLC Fred Hood started the meeting by giving the reading the following presentation and took questions at the end: • Good evening. My name is Fred Hood with Davidson Engineering. I am the land development consultant representing the applicantSkyAngel Center LLC for a PUD amendment application of the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. • Perthe land development code,tonight's meeting will be recorded.At the end of my presentation I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the rezone. • Here with me tonight is Jessica Harrelson with Davidson Engineering;our project coordinator. • Nancy Gundlach with Collier County Growth Management Services is also in attendance tonight and is the reviewing planner for Collier County. • Size and Location: Page 1 of 4 Attachment C DE DAVI,DSON o The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD(Ord.92-10) is situated at the northeast corner of the intersection of Collier and Beck Boulevards and is approximately 100.23 acres in size. o Tollgate Commercial Center is bound on three (3) sides by Federal,State and County maintained right-of-ways;Interstate 75 — North, Beck Boulevard(S.R.84) —South and Collier Boulevard(C.R.951) —West respectively.Along the eastern boundary,a Florida Highway Patrol station is situated with A-Agricultural zoning. Forest Glen of Naples PUD (a residential community)is situated on the southern side of Beck Boulevard.Developed C-4 and the 1-75/Alligator Alley CPUD properties are situated on the western side of the Collier Boulevard right-of-way across from Tollgate. • Purpose of the PUD Amendment: o Within the Tollgate PUD, the applicant is seeking to amend the zoning delineation line that separates the Parcels A and Parcels B land uses. o The result of this line adjustment will provide Parcel B light industrial land uses on Tracts 16-20; which totals approximately±8.93 acres. o Per Ordinance 92-10, Parcel A lots consist of Commercial only land uses that serve the "motoring public using Interstate I-75as well as providing limited commercial goodsand services of an area wide natureforthe Naples,Marco Island,GoldenGate and Immokalee service areas". o Parcel B lots consist of Commercial and Light Industrial land uses that, in addition to the what are permitted on Parcel A lots, are used for "the sale, service, transportation, storage and distribution of goods and service to the traveling public on 1-75 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems." o A full list of the permitted land uses provided within both Parcel designations have been provided on the handout available for your review. o The property within the PUD, that is the subject of this application, is currently undeveloped with existing access from Tollhouse Drive and Bush Boulevard.The subject property will utilize these existing right-of-ways to provide adequate ingress and egress. There are no new ingress and egress points or right-of-ways proposed or needed in relation to this PUDA request. o The change,as proposed,shall be consistent with the Collier County LDCand GMP in that the permitted land uses have been approved and are permitted as principal and accessory uses within the approved Toll Gate Commercial Center PUD. o The proposed project will continueto meet or exceed all buffer requirements setforth in the Collier County Land Development Code.Central water and sewer services exist in this area and the proposed project will not adversely affect the current Level of Service(LOS) for any public utilities. Page 2of4 Vifr DAVI DSO o The revised Conceptual Master Plan shows a land use line change.All otherPUDand LDC requirements remain in place consistent with the previously approved PUD.All required vehicular and pedestrian interconnections shall be adhered to with the development of any future projects on the property subject of this application. o The proposed land use change will result in increased developmentoptionsforthe limited defined acreage yet will not cause any detrimental level of service to the surrounding area. The following questions/comments were asked bythe attendees. 1. The line happens to cut through the east side of lot 21, which isa lot my husband and I own. What if we wanted to purchase the property to the right? What does that line do? Fred used the Master Site Plan Exhibit to show the proposed line change and explained the zoning of the lots on each side of the line. He also explained the allowable uses in each. 2. What is being proposed to be constructed on these lots? Fred explained that the applicant/propertyownerwas going through with the zoning change to make the lots more marketable and that there were currently no plans for uses or construction. 3. When did the applicant purchase these properties? Fred responded since 2003. 4. Did the applicant realize when he purchased the propertiesthatthe lots were not industrial? Rob Johnson replied that he was aware of the zoning of the lots. He also went into detail regarding properties he previously owned within Tollgate and when those lots were sold. 5. Attendee that owns property in White Lake stated he wasn't sure whythe applicant purchases the property with its current zoning and now wants to change it. Fred responded: The lots have been undeveloped for a number of years. He explained that light industrial zoning is hard to find in Collier County and the proposed rezoning makes the lots more marketable for developers or end users who are seeking undeveloped light industrial property within Collier County. Page 3 of 4 DE DAVIDSON 6. Attendee that owns property in White Lake stated that White Lake had vacant buildings within White Lake. Fred responded that the vacant lots owned by the applicant are more marketable for those who want to construct the lots to their liking. 7. What can be constructed there? Fred explained that the allowable uses were stated within the Tollgate PUD and have been provided as hand-outs for review. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:45pm. End of memo. Page 4of4 g e Lai ^CD r �� a s € as t--.0 § es a :a`IN- ag � a ° g� € e2 ;E. ja i g-5- _1 yilgae x Ida-s i g3g `1g0 :<.1=°a4' . a '' s -' V r 4E: R :..a a i.m rigN Orgii°IN a_ `u. 4 E �° .."`B,g ` " E�03$ e 3 4 tid !-a �$E °F. i s<g- 8- K;s 1i!; Ø as .!,...;°eta: �x kid Ifg -� was a c 10 5e €s ,> ®q: K esY �' 's3 � rYa s LL g `E- as LI+e a aagli 'a iac f g €a6's 'a5.2" =_' O-F °s '` 4;1 ak e- g kiE E- ,;!' a E g ° ga t!€ W ° .i '= 4 E.a m CD Eta iSIE Ba a15`s00 9s'2p '°`ES.- T Es git 2g4 00 ii:SE e8 1 "c a :€=_a' `o-°°g -s-, ;- agile - s'.a :a r a�tgg € E<tt €€gig as sa:" gbg"offs s � a'-' r s 's = J itie1131 E0 1!;494 -'1 OF d �5 o.. E Tl ni .��.ry gal: d4 gea'i ePI2$b ats•°sgez� 1€ge GM a et gfli ;'r4e gam8 g e;3 �f m' f eg a6 5 p a i a w_ �� it 1 IN r ' F= API ril 8 ', I z /," Li W A Ainl ; i ggvi lip, 1... 1 1----1 pi !8 2 0 is AIri ae,:-.!' ii g. IN -f Iii 5 -i' gi 'v N $s�: i 1e 1 15,E �� u5 r 6 �a� I I a x i201 , 0.4i 41 E Ea °ea'g - eT j}6 S> P $ kg !b ed i 1-,g 21t'T m . 1 2< I 1 ih l'.5-. 5 ' 3W a ' a° a � .e' 14". $l NI, 4 W ig YisI .� W as a _ t; Eli : - �E-,.�• •3. 1 ' . age - ? :=a_ 0 Q eg' t,1 a g € as �� utr'e n cgs' i ° 7 </ - 1 n `-4 IgliriF"a g Yi lit ;4 I s, s 1 E $E Li UV a S i W '11.4174=1;g0 4. a W ° O u 4, ° i� �� ' � �� a m fig_ � a !!!!!!:1 �":�Y� ft $ g i! ge 7 4b°kC eb a ° `�\" )g: : a g e7.4 6 !A 2ga ar _,LL 5!! 1i Sg 11 i €At a _1 g €a ig s t `i i i€k e f il gal El5calgacia 1 i =fig 4E8 Attachment D IJ.J N P^ l I Pi 7 a = _q k :3° gt.o.1 ¢sa26u¢isi8t.fg.:*4.6a+.ta sa I 07 E E$._ ga--"SJ;, P.e YC YR:3 wsg -a.$� o. s_x Zi A.e ag€ 11 ii at kk$ aOPMa§6 - _ Z401;14 8"6.` geci' M1r0.R.10 N .W.ON N = 0 25 sa€`sg' N-5_ =1 : .L'.�213 t.-/5 / _ x11 5 Ni p J 1— Z he Iggc.„1,44;;OprkiNkwANsIN,1,:aig3 8r` pii. g s° .xAai84 11=.2 t ':;� '2 E. Y € $glil:g o e°a_sg2' se gaaraiµe� gabs $s>2 ai $ o r• — E-4 46./M5;:i1/21401i0211;15tteN.15Pitit, i 0.2 e24 " u waaRrxsa -54 4=,X422.02:5.. .x_r:_2ess...as Z �9a� w t. Ilb P: .I .bJ rTi s F = u6 m t 2 0.l Y k l n b R W Y � Cara T ¢W t . 1 1 : i.:-7. i 1 I glo E 1 ! B g� F R S�Oe� I0. BI ; E =1 laxF mod_- ei + P',.:7 / if$ 1 .a mu anrao x,NV4, t R r cE2i212 /iii( :,x o.' os I i 1 3y a ni �Y Wok I' b-1 y'i.` \ ' Y/r� m,- E I . r �r.arNN CO gp1.rN �� - F,F �.1 e- .r.t 1 � R�$!86 a _° ,5 4$$ » � :RI"v I_L. , i oeigese , It ilige , \ 7. i mil _ . P / a 2 ° 0 I if .- 1, H a ' 1 Iw rd'rt ru 'uaa1 3.00.rNm N �,m R N. z s g i -'1IT kl i = : _ : ;i.`... // �-: , 0.e � I r m P ¢ a 3 1--- / 1 j99� 6 f L y �'7-.-1 6 1 OW fYE!71N'/T'OL ' V / z 1 ' 1 \N.. . a J N..r.R,N, Ry• CL/a .0017 195 'a '0 8 n M— a _ vn�vrC j a ese.. a t / _ €; ,i 10e I- n- IL' !!!, 8 x f CD N ` 6 1 h 091 14s8888s4s iii c oIINX8a88888 Y Y a n I g ', 0o / gls eltitisk o _iiitC.at= 8 o ,itti e4@ : r 81 �a j rT •giiiacia Wrta ui c a gB I IY K �� I- . / — .a.�m a a •!! g ! t �nan ocuoas 1•/1• ` yams IIVOLI rr0 01 Pr. .9`u E.ate.dol�1w 329som s\ 3-g .a•.0 3-+n]a1w t N 01WS I V yby ` = N ^ A Q..2 N 34 q Ha tt t- rTi 1, /21 /' / .....' It.ti.- 1 '1 dp L °r-- -. JMR+l J1n7M Ai, . `l 1 I :-,••J1 61 ` y I i Y. LDIMLR 3rilto 35f10HT1O1 ��'f�j Oi g81 ®' ! IL8 _ ° - yoasva urnrn.off}----- CO Wg ^ e N_ o s cc /` 1�°� p i y3 4 r kt¢1NJ 1. (el fir, IC $ Vg V bm 8 _ Cj M129-Y2m K S 3.29.IDm 8• _€. • e .00'001 m•sxx ili �l W_2 F 5 5- r` o y e i i3 C~]3- ;° 0 2 f Ott C Y' I m a¢ �� '�'p y6313 AS_'7i11 AI •� Z� ; .0'2. 3.29.220 39.1'0 ON•3'n /Ill $ moo` , �_VO!, 3-29.0.00¢ �" ACE �` w.•>r 0.•n .V.10YU1 OHYA3Y109 YtSf18 0 j`i'� ..0a•scrcfesn umin .009' ssc.mm -4 4135111Fil {', w liti rs '' ■D1 'W' a yam., yl ,_ .•'au .00•0. — �^� U C1 t- _--.--.J3-_ r'3-39Yd '9t NOO2 lna 1 13-_ [3?O.VV3 LM114 3Z • ° e DDl� ONV il3ROd YQI HOB!30id .OLU El 3 Yd '91 )0O8 01.9 3140 3SVI4 d 21311430'IVI0a311111C 311/07711 11 10YU L _ 1 i '1 ESME14 3-v c•� I rev ENr,'r.^ 021,;n�,rT. I , cc vo Ifil . . °' tL Ei8s8eses a R. � 9 ' f Q w 5aaaa'aeaa8e 4°f z M g 1.8 .28..28228 4-ii = h gg �s88IEIE88888885 "4 p.88R98l82Bi a i'1 1 o 4gs?Iis_isaai- a :Or. kkibkaJeakk 416 o a 3 ~ : {J •r^rOJdiirlC n-r 1 T R9.4Lta9 11 """ lel minas 4n J r 9 1ri197Vf WAVIVIC.01 s Z /3,1%12.0.00! 9 D 9 O1)O1VY F f97 11 Ig1W .ri'TR 1 W ti S8 t°v= g.p �i= 8 S Sa og 0 UY . e $ ~ r !� A- si g: 1 m ••a ♦.if 7 M k 1 3 m a ■3g s < 3 C 8114111.0I. 8 -rrl•0 JI - ` ka I 1AC.m.Ot" �� l .ac'«f R97.m.m" -•D,- 40.97, 1 n 31 RAM!3H'I'701 R r 1- j SI AC .CC d; 3! pi el e a.10.=-1- g N N� yyA • K B S �i ~.1 • UJ. 1 L6.ID.OD f I�• 51, 41 iY I / 4 JI.11i I ~ Va, 1 \ • f1rL} � $ A. a � rz •1S i. - ,5.S0x e 8 16 zz< i 3 1 61 O - k: i .d. a, p C 5 U p Ni ? a _ �Y d W s S d•� JI t - <n -� 5. N- - ;d it _q I'l}.� 1 !i.i I s , -y Yy I �JOlnn uJT.ln.ol , ./r --•(�f) !L xcar � &&L= era. T 1 Ae•Q. RW.m•0 x rn On 9•n § f 1 "AO.Oft Rtt.m-W• � YfOI>BpE9/MOItlM[ 1 r` .Y.1.0YM.1. ONYA3'if1W FiST18 'OBI.. JI HS .97•fU R I,.R.m-00 x L- F �� S6•[ff e1�]axlKap mAD x 0 '�rtJ� 1xf1D0.3 YJ�IY.A • `�� !/�ny��`� I•..! j h"° os °d } Ca -i / ` AVS16.a 37.'X1/60.f I ..x•.97 v 1 Af•11f e ir�/.� d LS'SSOJ 3-01.06.99" i1N31Jt35V3 1.41VdL10',1 —n -1--.--17.-1 .11-12I1 W 9I1 Y H3nod V011710-1A MIn .0217 '4,j O '42 30Yd 'et >Me iY-1 =g J- o:u 3S1.4d 11311430•IYiJ231L103 31V9-1-101 o I a \ I 1:15,11.L rm It ggni 1 1 ! 11 �ryi _1 ,.� 4,444. - Vfl o/Q' J Vvg6dI i t.L. —7 , liPiill L..1 0 R °R c e 38 R..., W 411 ill""" R Ili n w 0.1 eAAo g I E - r °>6 age �i : iR8988 F68 11 ,31 o es ti -68586 a o .5 , s J 6 �j .. q O ;0fii [..3r�L $ A68888 s�� O e eei S 9S9Y '�{ Pei , 1111141 [ . i i Der :-, TT 'y[� .00. 161.30.011 5 9 9 133.14 01 1010 t {1. ,� /4/31,1 m..v a °1 w AVON AO'in 3N77 LbiW !--• 3 r R7 !•s5 YYn g Si gq C33) / .' t I b j '0°• 51 8 W ' G ammo 3 .°sl y br ' 3 M � Y rL 3.6029212121/111.33/193102 102 'N , 202 o a.�lavNl 3AIMG M9d34 k S • T 1n / 13 oN.? _ 0922_ O r!$ w t' i • Ti 1 1 521 °t XW g 1 ra $ a 8 ,_? ._ � I Y - ° \ S FR a 9-9 7.-- o I IrP 1 m 0 16-.. k� = .- ti J 110X0 96YI12119.02 , C T i °�I N w ~ e 06'x] 11 st•tb a3•xd I u { I _ ,,4..333 Imo• \A n,, 1%. ICII!dl r 8 �I` '' \le� _ 1, q -c ti -e3 ~�' - ! a8 m°z et g ug F,k $9 -a .8 g1 m Z. =• .E 8 gE 41 4:1 i' < LS v W lrexr m.za--- > ; :morn 7aao at,1- DOM.'3•n•a on.y.n x.atsom■ elk 2-' 3.61.213-00 t t ` t l al• M1t1a0i0 11 1-/."a tY W at•i<1 B % ®.6- Laval A 36[210%IMMe 6a1.m.116.. m5 !•••4•:: o I 1 i / Vet 2 k 14 m 8 _ 1c�_g $ ygY J 2 ii S� 2® Zy 1 1 I . ti i.t • _ g _ _ 3191 7 P10ILt3E9 I. 12229222 122212110 R..tt '�.' m�, 1, iffiW\ • ,66.9216 A36Q 3911 1000 .21.222 - .. 9 i0 L 13:319tI Ill 101611 46'3[6 IKi46.00 6 9 9 r 17316 al.1131w o _i 1 1g 0 p2 " li ' I T '.vnw6�sfri •-10006' wl�ir'1AW�116t�ier O 0 i P. 0 1.1.1 fo 1 a EL w e 4° 8 alb . � U� E 0 N WS a € S6 =d4° L F z� N `if2 , alit e b 1T e b. SCE ' 66Jril4- s: i s o = 11 e.a co glieir 41 - ;ee._ " 903 1 : s " rT1 !Ig2 g1;tE.i.: *./2 1 a. ; i.: JINIIt 24 t L,9 g W L. E z -u w�Y °.. i _ .. - / A ''' 11=11.116.10 II / I r j y CTS m r $ O �T < W IF r N ii I ' ~ P C) ,_0,m...,1 I i ii: $ ^ iii /4i..r /: § b .$. 1 �' W = /� .g as/ Ngzi fli $3 e /...I r•1 , i © / Z Li P f'Ck ii§ 8 ;c3) 4 1-. 1-_-y�.......Jl.. � �u Ors` }_ p .�s ,71 939 8 rT h V n to FI, / ,-- I/ /1 5W ce U 0 id � °�j 0 !_ m / / I is 3111 loaru .0c•us n-,Z0..Y i t 7 7 s do Y 13.ai Yaiw / / ? f $� r ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-10, AS AMENDED, THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY AMENDING THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO CONVERT LOTS 16 THROUGH 20 AS SHOWN ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN FROM COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR-951) AND BECK BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20150000281] WHEREAS, on February 11, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 92-10, which established the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development(the"Tollgate PUD");and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 93-91,which amended the Tollgate PUD;and WHEREAS, Sky Angel Center, LLC represented by Frederick E. Hood, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc. petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend the Tollgate PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Master Plan. Exhibit"A" to the PUD Document, the PUD Master Plan, attached to Ordinance No. 92- 10, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced with the Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of ,2015. [1 S.-CPS-01426/1175904/1J 17 I of 2 Tollgate Commercial Center—PUDA-PI20 1 5 000028 1 4/30/15 Attachment A 3 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: L 11" Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A Revised PUD Master Plan [15-CPS-01426/I 175904/Il 17 2 of Tollgate Commercial Center—PUDA-PL20150000281 4/30/15 NAP 11 MASTER I DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 TOLLGATE a COMMERCIAL CENTER ill� January, 1991 R64 ::::;:':::::.::::".::........::.:::: P pi 1 1 ::::,:.!..::..../ ‘.,011,g ifi .::::., 4:::,.:1 40-7A liPg z --.........k— le ...:.:::::.....::.. ....:.,......,::: . ...,1 M AIAVIDI DRIVE is V `: :: :::ii. 1 g C R A 14 �_ o<a. `� - w �Pr 61.1:ASKM ENT••••N‘ 1111 (. .. .. UIID U 1 /7 ., II NI lotus , ,..: TOLLGATE BLVD. " 0.N rni® 1- \ C.R. 951 a.. ' — _--- EXHIBIT "A" ) r i, . 1 AGENDA ITEM 9-C Co e-r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 16,2015 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20120001128: WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD PROPERTY OWNER,APPLICANT & AGENT: Owner: Agent: South Florida Growers Association,Inc. Lauralee G.Westine,Esq. 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Law Office of Lauralee G. Westine,P.A. Miami,FL 33126 800 Tarpon Woods Boulevard, Suite E-1 Palm Harbor,FL 34685 Applicant: SBA Towers III, LLC 5900 Broken Sound Parkway NW Boca Raton,FL 33487 REQUESTED ACTION: The Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) currently permits office and medical office uses. The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)to consider an application for an amendment to add a 150-foot monopine (monopole support structure, designed to resemble a pine tree)communication tower as a permitted principal use. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 8.29± acres in size and is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Bailey Lane. The site is currently developed with offices. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed communication tower would have a maximum height of 150 feet and be a monopole structure to support communication antennae with added camouflage structures designed to resemble a pine tree. Wilson Professional Center PUD,PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 1 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC A e • 8� TM11AAS TRAIL DAS.11) S r e - GODOLETTE•FRA1R(ROAD (CA 061) 4'- ' �� If 11 I __ - A (Cft 851) i. __. - - '� �_GOOULETTE�F lie 1 �� _A/WK A�AO�' i I p1 BM ACRE GOCOLLYTE ROAD Fw II— .11 tli 11 7/1__:— ' 1 i e. > /� ■ 111. 1 _ " _ A , , . , - �A .. _ _ AIRPORT-PULLING ROM ppyy GNLLlM1 LT\ p ate.. 0 11 (C.23t1 ill \ {M• Ri Q i li ( le 4. Z ) - il It° IlL & m m 1 411 It 8 Q 99 1_ F ` 111 li ^ v LIVNGSTON ROAD C-- am m■.� ; we $ O r II T W.4PIL � a 2 i .J�!i11 S a 8i me V Lwow u fmyj Ot pi 3. ..,as ,y A �,N 1 ■ i � i U it ,p C v r l -_ 11pAA L• • INTERSTATE-r6 $ 868 7 NTERSTATE-15 m a 1 i3I A g I0g le— sil aH u _1 ill iG 111 j d et O 3*"." * SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD Z 2t 13 Orqt TO 1WAts D I- -.21railla N IV r547414‘,4Z;Et!t;ti !iL hio m © -Q is N 1 .o'°'©Val a : 11014© 4�9 03 . •t!sn �Yp::� i:i!i Ali eV?! ,All ill . a V- ��©�iil }FF iii i i iyPi SACRAMENTO WAY ii:!i!i!i!::!•:!:;i; ii ii i!iii ii#i: - Oil* ovii- - = C meee eeee - - 111:i1,iii FFiF}iiiiii!i i Liiiiiiiiiiiig ::..:.:... Q-ti 51 - l.i:io-:i>:ar:::: }iii}iiiiii iEi iiii}'•iei K 111 - _ .i!i:Iimi: ;}} ii i}ii}!: i!: co . . A ii.: iiii: 1. IiiIi;ciiiii!s}i}�!B:Fi::!?:Ih?1 n Illa 116 D _ AROT-wIOO (a aq ...AL V cN i LI RAC A PLACE y ,V e r aaasr sa rr i � + � � '1 5 �© © d m10! 1 loll z W SI lai al a in SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Bailey Lane ROW, across which are medical offices zoned C-1 and undeveloped land, zoned A. East: Airport-Pulling Road ROW and canal ROW, across which are a golf course and homes, zoned MPUD (Grey Oaks). South: Homes in the Poinciana Village subdivision,zoned RMF-6 West: A church,zoned A Y, r �.1 __.,.. -p-'.. t, ,\A 1 _ ll 1111 I .. +!k �� .` lei, I{' \ 1 ..::.7:; s:':. ' '''.....''4":;'''';',...x4k. 1, ' ''1, �C 41, a In 1i ate..:. 136 ,'l �■J s. t � y� e OrtitP?kut ..,,,&:' "- )4:: ,•■.4../61 100"44,6 e. ., Ott qk , 3 r� 1.-e • 1, ti Aerial Photo(GoogleMaps) Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 3 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC Proposed 150'-0" M. SBA Manopine • 4 , 4 9'* n- . ., s NAMOIMI Photoillustration supplied by the Applicant GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: The Wilson Professional Center PUD was determined to be consistent with the GMP at the time of the original rezone. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed amendment will not affect that consistency determination;therefore, Staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: The applicant wishes to add the use of communication tower to the permitted principal uses in the CPUD along with four supporting deviations and new development standards. It should be noted that LDC Section 5.05.09 permits telecommunication towers in all commercial zoning districts up to specific heights. The applicant states that the tower is required to cope with heavy phone and data demand in the area. Staff analyzed the application, including effects on wildlife, distance from residential areas and visual impact. Staff considers visual impact to be the greatest concern. Cellular service, which works with mobile phones and other devices, is generally regarded by the public as a utility. However, unlike more traditional utilities which operate as monopolies within franchise areas, cellular service providers compete in the free market. Traditional utilities such as electric power and landline telephone service are permitted to utilize utility easements and ROWs for their lines. The poles and lines have a visual impact on neighborhoods, albeit, one that most Americans have grown accustomed to seeing in residential neighborhoods. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 4 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC F 3 The United States Supreme Court has determined that "any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record" (see T-Mobile v. Roswell, attached). The applicant has requested a"monopine" tower, a monopole structure, designed to collapse on itself, limited to 150 feet in height. The "pine" feature of the "monopine" includes branch-like structures which will hide the antennae and create the illusion of being a tall pine tree. The applicant has provided photos (attached)including"before"photos and"after"photos—with the monopine digitally edited into the photo. Staff believes the monopine structure will ameliorate the visual impact to the greatest extent possible. This PUDA also adds dimensional standards for a communications tower and accessory structures: Setbacks: Monopine,measured from the flange South: 229.5 feet West: 32 feet Accessory Structures: South: 190.5 feet West: 10 feet Maximum Height: 150 feet Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Review Staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. A preserve requirement did exist in the CCME during the time of the original PUD document (92-23). The preserve requirement has been in the GMP since 1989 and in the LDC since 1991. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan included a requirement for a preserve. However there was no specific percentage for the preserve requirement for other than residential development. All other types of new development were required to "preserve an appropriate portion of native vegetation on the site as determined through the County development review process" (1989 Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.4.7) Therefore, it is consistent with the GMP for this site to retain a preserve requirement as originally indicated within the PUD document. Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The Environmental Considerations section and PUD Master Plan have been revised to reflect the Preserve that was retained in accordance with the original PUD document section 5.7.e. The site plan depicts the proposed impact to the existing Preserve area. The existing preserve has been on the developed site since the property was developed in the early 1990s. The monopine will be placed within an existing preserve area. However, this will not bring the PUD below the minimum preserve acreage required. The minimum required preserve acreage is 0.51 acres; 1.69 acres is being provided. Wilson Professional Center PUD,PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 5 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC 2 This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project meets 1 the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, a deviation is being requested related to separation from preserves. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of four deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the PUD document. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs. . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished and while protecting the public interest. . . . Please see attached Deviation Justifications provided by the applicant. Deviation 1—A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3 Required Setbacks to Preserves. Justification—This deviation memorializes that the PUD was not originally subject to the preserve setback requirement. If the preserve setback were to be applied, existing buildings may become nonconforming. Deviation 2 — A Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.09.G.2.a separation distance of a communication tower from residentially zoned property. Justification — Since the LDC Communication Tower language was written, technology has improved so that a monopole tower collapses upon itself. In addition, the tower, as well as the "branches" are subject to building code wind-load requirements. Staff believes this justifies the deviation from the 2.5 times the tower-height requirement (150ft. x 2.5 = 375ft.). The closest residential property is 229.5 feet from the proposed tower. A letter sealed by Robert E. Beacom, P.E. of Sabre Industries (attached) states that the pole is designed to withstand a wind speed of 163 MPH. At wind speeds of greater velocity "...the monopole will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing on itself." Deviation 3—A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1 Buffer Requirements Justification — The requested deviation would reduce the internal landscape buffer from the required 10-foot Type "A" to 0-feet, utilizing existing vegetation to buffer the tower Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 6 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC ' it from the rest of the PUD. Since the buffer is internal, requested by the applicant, Staff does not object to the deviation. Deviation 4—A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.05.B.2.c General Landscaping Requirements Justification — This deviation, coupled with Deviation 3, will ensure that landscaping shall be installed, even if the width is less than the LDC requirement. FINDINGS OF FACT: t, This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b "a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development." PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation,the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the r p oposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of a monopine communication tower will be visually conspicuous since, although the site is currently vegetated with pines, the monopine will be significantly taller than the natural canopy. Staff also believes that the visual impact will be somewhat ameliorated by the "camouflage" effect of the monopine. The tower will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Unified control was established at the time of rezoning and continues through the present ownership. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this amendment to add a communication tower does not affect the PUD's consistency with the GMP, therefore, Staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The only proposed change is the addition of a communication tower and Staff believes that Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 7 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC the approval of this amendment will continue to be compatible with the surrounding area, subject to the existing development standards and project deviations. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUD requires 30 percent usable open space. The applicant states that this requirement is met and will provide calculations at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is Staff's opinion that the addition of a communication tower as a permitted use will not affect public or private facilities beyond what was approved in the existing PUD. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The applicant states that a tower is required in this location due to high data usage. Staff understands that with changes in technology, including smart phones, additional towers and antennae will be required in the area. Since the subject PUD has existing pines, this expansion appears to be reasonable. Since the existing PUD is for professional office uses, a telecommunication tower is a necessary infrastructure required to further facilitate communication within the professional office setting. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed amendment is consistent with PUD regulations, with the four proposed deviations,and seeks to meet a desired purpose of serving the surrounding community with phone and data service. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan, The addition of a communication tower does not affect the previous determination of consistency. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; 9 The existing land use pattern was reviewed and approved at the time of the original rezone. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter that pattern. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 8 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC 1. i 1 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; No new districts will be created through this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment will not affect existing district boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The petitioner states, and Staff agrees, that changes in technology make the proposed amendment necessary to provide phone and data service to the area. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; There will be visual impact to the neighborhood. Phone and data service is also desired by many in the neighborhood. As a result, Staff believes that the monopine features of the tower will lessen the visual impact on the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. A communication tower is typically unmanned,visited routinely for maintenance, and will not affect the level of service on Airport-Pulling Road. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The PUD has existing buildings and an existing water management system. I I 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Due to the nature of a communication tower, it will not reduce the circulation of light and air. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by many factors including zoning; however,zoning by itself may or may not affect values,since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Since the Wilson Professional Center PUD is existing, the proposed amendment should not Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 9 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the GMP which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing land-uses; however, the petitioner believes that the addition of a communication tower to the currently permitted uses will support the surrounding community with expanded phone and data service. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; 1 As noted previously, the subject property is already developed; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the i opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Communication towers are, by nature, area-specific. In order to provide service to the community, antennae must be located at certain specific intervals. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended This petition has been reviewed by County Staff that is responsible for jurisdictional Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 10 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and Staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. 9.04.03 -Criteria for Variances Section 5.05.09.G.2.a, Communications Towers, of the LDC requires that towers which do not meet the required setback from residential zoning districts be reviewed under Section 9.04.03, Criteria for Variances. Although it will be added as a deviation, it must meet the standards for a variance. Findings. Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the BCC, the Planning Commission shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination: A. There are special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size,and characteristics of the land, structure,or building involved. The structure, the tower, must be located within a certain area in order to provide cellular service. In addition, as stated previously,the tower has been designed to collapse on itself if winds exceed 163 MPH. The"fall zone" is estimated to be 32 feet,not the required 375 feet. B. There are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. The tower must be placed within a certain effective radius, however, this particular site was chosen through the actions of the applicant. C. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. The applicant states that practical difficulties in service will result if the tower is not located in this area. In addition, current tower engineering permits a tower to be located closer than 2.5 times the height to residential. D. The variance, if granted,will be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, or welfare. The applicant states that this is the minimum variance required. As stated previously, modern engineering has lessened the "fall zone". This is the minimum variance needed to allow the tower in the proposed location. E. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 11 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC IJ Granting of a variance will permit a tower to be closer to residential zoning than permitted by the LDC, however, the LDC provides this process to permit the Planning Commission and BCC to consider a lesser setback. A monopole tower "collapses on itself" if damaged, resulting in a "fall zone" of 32 feet,according to the applicant. F. Granting the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. At the time of this writing, three objections have been received, including the Poinciana Civic Association of Naples, Inc. Objections are to the visual impact of the tower on their neighborhood. It is up to the CCPC and eventually the BCC, to determine if the visual impact is injurious enough to the neighborhood to warrant denial of this PUDA. G. There are natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. 1 The applicant has chosen to specify a "monopine" tower in order to attempt to blend in with surrounding slash pine trees. The tower will be substantially taller, but the "tree- effect" may soften the visual impact. H. Granting the variance will be consistent with the GMP. This PUD has been deemed consistent with the GMP.The requested amendment is to add a communications tower as a permitted use. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)REVIEW: The CCPC sitting as the EAC is required to hear this petition because of the requested deviation to the preserve setback requirement. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): Two NIMs were held for this petition. On May 9, 2013, a meeting was held at the Wilson Professional Center. No members of the public were present. Because of a "hold" status requested by the petitioner, and additional staff review, another NIM was held on January 16, 2015 at the Fleischmann Park Community Center. Three members of the public attended. A NIM summary and sign-in sheet are attached. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was submitted to the County Attorney Office on June 26,2015. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20120001128 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. 1 Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 12 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC PREPARED BY: F• "i:' ISCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: i • A- . 3- ( - 1S' RA 0,4 V. LLO S,ZONING v f AGER DATE ZONING • ISION _,1/7,../,..,,, MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: /s- JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD .7 DA 47 / GROW 'i, AGEMENT DEPARTMENT /Z/:■/100r 7- g -if 1 ICK AS LAN - I A t T'TY COUNTY MANAGER DATE GROWTH MANAGE NT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the September 8,2015 BCC Meeting Attachments: Draft Ordinance Correspondence Application& Support Material Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 Page 13 of 13 July 16,2015 CCPC ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-23, THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AS AMENDED, TO ADD A 150- FOOT MONOPINE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE, ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE COMMUNICATION TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES, ADD DEVIATIONS RELATING TO PRESERVE SETBACKS, COMMUNICATION TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, REMOVE WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS, AND REVISE THE MASTER PLAN, FOR THE PUD PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND BAILEY LANE IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,on April 28, 1992,the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 92-23,the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development(the"PUD");and WHEREAS, the Wilson Professional Center PUD was amended by Ordinance Numbers 94-24 and 98-21;and WHEREAS, Lauralee G. Westine,Esquire representing SBA Towers III,LLC,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD to add a 150-foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted principal use, add development standards for the communication tower and related facilities, add deviations relating to preserve setbacks, communication tower and related facilities setbacks and landscape buffers, remove water management and environmental development commitments,and revise the Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: [I 2-CPS-0 1 1 92/1 1 80563/I]Words claulliggarlinatl are added;Words stnisk-thceugh are deleted [12-CPS-01192/1150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001 128—5/18/15 0 3 SECTION ONE: Amendment to the Cover Page of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No.92-23,as Amended The Cover Page of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit"A",attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: Amendment to Section I, Statement of Compliance, of the PUD k. Document attached to Ordinance No.92-23,as Amended Section I, Statement of Compliance, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23,as amended,is hereby amended to read as follows: The purpose of this section is to express the intent of .:-, _ , : - '-: , --; e - • • ' -• • • • - _ South Florida Growers Association,Inc.; 80Q Tarpon Woods Blvd., Suite E-1, Palm 1. •. lorida 3 . : , hereinafter referred to as applicant or sponsor, to develop property located in part of section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. The name of this proposed development shall henceforth be known as Wilson Professional Center. The development of this Planned Unit Development will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan and other applicable documents for the following reasons: SECTION THREE: Amendment to Subsection 2.1 of Section II, Property Ownership and Legal Description, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No.92-23,as Amended Subsection 2.1 of Section II, Property Ownership and Legal Description, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No.92-23,as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently owned by ' .. -, -., ::. ._ ' :_ , . :; ! = - • - South Florida Growers ssociation, SECTION FOUR: Amendment to Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of the PUD Document of Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended [12-CPS-01192/1180563/1]Words double underlined are added;Words Neugh are deleted [12-CPS-01192/1150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128—5/18/15 '`r'l Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended,is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION IV PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS * * * * * * 4.2 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof,shall be erected,altered,or used,or land or water used,in whole or in part,for other than the following: 1) Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a) Offices and medical offices with a maximum of 72,000 sq. ft. limited to two buildings,and subject to the following limitations: 1. Emergency medical clinics are prohibited. 2. Medical office uses are limited to a maximum occupancy of 17,396 sq. ft. b) nc I 50:_Monmine Conimunication_Toweraldel d_ciiIitics * * * * * * 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Maximum Number of Parcels: Two building parcels. 2) Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Structures: a) Internal road easement or front yard—25 feet. b) Side Yard - 15 feet. c) Rear Yard—25 feet. d) PUD Property Line-50 feet in which no parking is permitted. e) P - - of-- .i• eal .j•. , - ' tr, s - * * * * * * 1otpi Comnwnication el d ci c U la etthStand s Mc,IY npine Cornmur_jotiort Towerand all relat�flc jjtie,shall the enclosed 'itn_ ill, clue,� i ra1-,y tuiished�v ll anti located on tlt- o. d tower ttract,shnwn on Exhibit`'A', TI MQnopincS'�mnunica i Towc_uhlli [12-CPS-01192/1180563/1]Words doable underlined are added;Words saltek4hcough are deleted 112-CPS-01192/1150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128—5/18/15 be set back lrutt3_the property lines as luUuws: North 442'2": South 229'6"' East ¢10'3"; West 42'.t". All related facilities,other tan the Monopine Communication Tower, shall be set buk from the property lines as follows: North 402'9"; South 190'7";East 570'8;mat 20'1", 14) Deviations for Monopine Cotunication Tower Deviation #1 seeks relie uirin a 25 feet setback for princip. _structures and 10 feet for accessory structures to allow a zero 1 t etbaek for principal and accessory structures. in recognition alb a= then existing Growth Managemenl_Plan requirements for native vegetation_retentionat the time the original PUD was approved,which did not require a preserve setback. Deviation#2 s_ eks relief from the LDC Se ion 5._1 • which r-' .' - 3 75' setback for the tiwcr from all residential property,calculated at the height of •- • • - 1• - .• . • • • • •W •'•" - •. 011_ - id-. ' - • ••-i O the South, Deviation#3 seeks relief from the LDC__Seed .'•' s_ T_ - A 1-o_t wjsje landscape buffer with trees spaced no more than 30 feet on center.to tallow a 0-root wide.landscape butter adjacent to_the communication is wer.only as indicated on the Master Plan. Deviation#4 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.05 B.2.c., "General •� . ••• • ► -•u' - , " 4' 1 -• .'re w' ,• . n. 'v- v_!eta 'on to have a 15-foot wide landscape buffer with minimum code size tree located 25 feet on center anti a 3-t'oot higl3 he e planted 3 feet on center, to allow the following.landstape butlerwidth r_•1. •s 1 de.' n Exhibit"B around the tower compound: a) Along the northeast side: a_tiniwtum 5-footAide_buffer for u 50%of the landscape buffer, b1 Along the southeast side a minimum 4-foot wide but for ua to 50%of the landscape buffer. c) Along the southwest si••_a minimum 0-foot wide buffer ru un to 50%of the landscape buffer, d) Along the northwest side: aminimum Q-foot wide buffer for us to 25%of the landscape buffer. e) _Along the west side: a.lninimin 10-foot wide c buffer for up to 1 QQ%of the_,landscaQebuffer. [12-CPS-0l 192/1 1 80563/1]Words double underlined are added;Words stmck ough are deleted [12-CPS-01192/1150329/1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128—5/18/15 SECTION FIVE: Amendment to Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No.92-23,as Amended Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23,as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS * * * * * * 5.4 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN a. The PUD Master Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein asxhibit"A" - - , ., a is an illustrative preliminary development plan. * * * * * * stipulations: Bear. " _ - e _ • " .. ., . 112-CPS-01192/I 180563/13Words double underlined are added;Words stunk--through are deleted [12-CPS-01192/115032911] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128—5/18/15 5.76 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS - - .. - • - eetion . . . . - . - ,. - •_ - . . - .. . C. Prohibited- - seetio- '2.6...: • • . . ! - - , e: LAs portrayed in the revised preliminary site plans dated July 7, 1987 march 1, 989. a may be a_menrleel.,412r y retention/buffer areas surrounding the parcel will be an average of at least 36 feet in width. Final design of the dry retention/buffer areas should incorporate retention of the maximum amount of native vegetation possible,and final designs will be subject to the review and approval of the County Project Review Services Environmental staff. ibis o itio is dep ced Preset Areas on the PUD Master nlan rand ah; s st ll_natiit vegetation retentiotuequirementa. g: 12,Petitioner should investigate using rock or paver bricks for roadways and parking lots in lieu of traditional use of asphalt paving. SECTION SIX: Amendment to Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No.92-23,as Amended Exhibit"A", the PUD Master Plan, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92- 23, as amended, is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by Exhibit "A", attached hereto 6 as Exhibit"B"and incorporated herein by reference. 1 SECTION SEVEN: Addition of Exhibit "B," the Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit, to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23,as Amended [12-CPS-01192/1180563/1]Words double underlined are added;Words struck ough are deleted [12-CPS-01 192/1150329/1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128—5/18/15 k Exhibit `B", the Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby added to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended. SECTION EIGHT: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of ,2015. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk Tim Nance,Chairman Approved as to form and legality: s/tb f Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—PUD Cover Page Exhibit B—Exhibit"A"PUD Master Plan Exhibit C--Exhibit`B"Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit CP\12-CPS-01192\3 [12-CPS-01192/1180563/1]Words double underlines}are added;Words ugh are deleted [12-CPS-01192/1150329/1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20 120001 128—5/18/15 EXHIBIT A WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 'U DA— -2W.20001128 8 Acres Located in Section 23, Township 49 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida REVISED: PDll AA�992 { PREPARED BY: NAPLES,F ORIDA 3394'7 Laldrake—CLAOLesti ne.Esa. Mattaniah S.Jahn.Esa, ,I„aw Office of Lauralee G.Westine,PA 800 Tarpon Woods Blvd„Suit Palm Harbor,FL 34685 Date Reviewed by CCPC 42/92 Date Approved by BCC 43892 Ordinance Number 923 Amendments and Repeal EXHIBIT"A" Words double underlined are added;Words st k-I:kx ugh are deleted y � I 4 EXHIBIT B -- . BAILEY LANE ---------10'NATURAL VEGETATION BUFFER — r- 1 ki, ____ _ _ ____ .\ . . . .. NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION i NATIVE VEGETATION (VARIED WIDTH) (0.17 AC) NATIVE VEGCIAIION i , L." PRESERVATION PRESERVATION (VARIED WIDTH) (VARIED WIU'1H) (0-04 AC) (0.35 AC) I NATIVE VEGETATION x PRESERVATION a. 0 —(VARIED WIDTH) L L-11 * NAPLES 1st CHURCH 1 (0.06 AC) 'n NAZARENE INC I n COLLIER COUNT' I .. 711NiNG • INi;.t.)-IoNAL -CIII,Rr.rIFS 1 I II u OR J?i PC GjF BUILDING PARCEL A i \ I d H C Aj F_ i f g PROPOSED —�/ ■ 150'0'SSA .. MONOPINE I _ ii PUD J . j Boundary—/.1 k:/. } ;,, I I I I, II �I Existing 6' Fence I t(AIIV£ VEC,CTATIOIr` PRESCkVAIIOtJ with 5' Natural I ('u,RIEC YlIOIH1 (Ot?7 aj:} i xVegetation Buffer — I _ .— —1 ONCILL PARTNERS DAVID F FUCENC M YVFTr jQSET9. M "" THOMPSON ETA 'TARDY MLETO SUSAN ADAMS LLC rRUNCALLE `))3 USA i COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY CDLLii R COJNP CLLIER COUNTY CE COLLIER COUNTY , COLLIER COLINN COLLIER COUNTY n ZONING. MFLI0 ZON:NG MFLIU 70NPIG: NFLIO ZONING: Itn ID ZONINGAWI10 OR ZONINf, 1iFl ID Z{N11NG M!'0 i 1640 PG 457 OR 4759 sk, 1369 OR 1386 PC 1296'' ON 4597 oG I D'; OR 45OP OR ,)4114 T'G 49 OR 4766 PG 375 PI: 202s I r SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 8.13 AC w PRESERVE REQUIRED(3 4 X 1S): 0.51 AC y PRESERVE PROVIDED; 1.32 AC 4 !j NOTE: 5 1 PRESERVES AREA ME CONCEPTUALLY DEPICTED AND ARE GOVERNED BY SECTION S.Sial ■V T J.R.EVANS ENGINEERING,P.A. WILSON PROFESSIONAL PROJECT*: 13414-1 ki 23150 FASHION DRIVE,SUITE 242 .n CENTER FILE DATE: 7/2014 ESTERO,FLORIDA 33928 PHONE:(279)405-9148 DESIGN BY: 5CF 0 50' 100' cc. FAN:(2391268-2537 MASTER CONCEPT PLAN SEC.23,TOWN.a95,R.2SE rt., WWW.IREVANSENGINEERING.COM EXHIBIT A SCALE: 1" = 100' t FL.COA a 29226 SCALE: 1"=100' EXHIBIT C i I 1 It N NAPLES 1st CHURCH N 1 i AZARENE INC ` � COLLIER COUNTY J BUILDING ZONING: I PARCEL A • INSTITUTIONAL-CHURCHES OR 975 PG 656 I I O q PROPOSED �, // 150'-0"SBA -.___ _ MONOPINE --+t-- I ---- . 1 '? ,, W / \ 4 .,.. i CN7/9? . W 3 i PUD --�- I 2 Boundary I 1 Deviation#4 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.05.8.2.c.,"General Landscaping I Requirements,"which requires sites without native vegetation to have a 15-foot wide landscape buffer with minimum code size trees located 25 feet on center and a 3-foot o I I e high hedge planted 3 feet on center,to allow the following landscape buffer widths, o graphically depicted hereto on Exhibit"B,"around the tower base: A. Along the northeast side:a minimum 5-foot wide buffer for up to 50%of the g landscape buffer. ! B. Along the southeast side:a minimum 4-foot wide buffer for up to 50%of the c I / landscape buffer. E !PRESERVE C. Along the southwest side:a minimum 0-foot wide buffer for up to 50%of the landscape buffer. a I D. Along the northwest side:a minimum 0-foot wide buffer for up to 25%of the A I 1 landscape buffer. _ "a E. Along the west side:a minimum 10-foot wide buffer for up to 100%of the landscape buffer. W I ,� / W W g O O U W LL O A o J.R.EVANS ENGINEERING,P.A. WILSON PROFESSIONAL PROJECT#: 13414-1 N 23150 FASHION DRIVE,SUITE 242 L� r�+L+ FILE DATE: 4/2015 �� v EESTERO,FLORIDA 33928 CENTER ER W PHONE:(239)405-9148 DESIGN BY: SCF 0 25' 50' FAX:(239)288-2537 EXHIBIT B SEC.23,TOWN.49S,R.25E SCALE: 1" = 50' a W W W.iREVANSENGINEERING COM FL.COA It 29226 _ SCALE: 1"•50' 0 II Collier Mosquito Control District A w 600 North Road,Naples,FL 34104-3464 •A,- Administration: 239-436-1000/239-436-1005 (fax) Hangar: 239-436-1008/239-436-1007(fax) www.collier-mosquito.org Mr. Reischl, The Collier Mosquito Control District(CMCD)identifies the locations of all towers,within Collier County,to prepare for aerial treatment missions. Recently,we learned of a new tower on Bailey Ln. which will be constructed in the near future. CMCD has no safety concerns with the Bailey Ln. tower at this time. Regards, cow Qfpp'z:ato Director of Operations Collier Mosquito Control District 600 North Road Naples, FL 34104-3464 239-436-1000 main# 239-436-1005 fax iohna,cmcd.org Board of Commissioners: Executive Director: Spray Schedule: 239-436-1010 David Farmer, Chair Frank Van Essen, Ph.D. Jackie D. Fresenius, Secretary Immokalee Substation: Bob D. Geroy, Treasurer 195 Airpark Blvd John F. Johnson Immokalee, FL 34142 Linda McDaniels 239-867-3200 ReischlFred From: Richard Eddy[richardteddy @gmaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:19 PM To: lauralee @westinelaw.com Cc: ReischlFred g. Subject: Proposed Bailey Lane Tower Dear Ms. Westine, Laura lee, Thanks for your open and friendly presentation at Fleischmann Community Center on this proposal. Confirming my request,please send me by surface mail,ASAP,the CD (or DVD) of the Environmental Impact study about the existing wild life and flora in the vicinity of this proposed Cellular Tower. You said it was lengthy and would be best sent by mail for me to see on my computer. I use a macbook. As I mentioned I am not convinced this is the best place to put such an obtrusive tower in this neighborhood. As my family has owned this home for 45 years in beautiful Naples, I am sorry to see such a totally unacceptable tower being put in my back yard adjacent to an area where NOTHING would interfere with the environment. At the meeting I asked about how the building of the tower would affect nesting and migration patterns in the area. My home is on the canal directly behind the church's preserve bordering on the tower site(probably less than one city block!). While you discussed various aspects of how long these things take,I do not recall your answering my question. I would hope that the actual building of the tower, if approved,would be sensitive to these natural factors,but I did nor receive any assurances of that being done. Just that there was a 500-odd page study,that would take several weeks to read. Of course,if and when the Proposed Tower is approved,the actual timing of construction could be done to MINIMIZE any nesting or migration patterns. However, it seemed that the firms wanting to use the tower did not have this on their agenda. How will the builder respect nesting and migration patterns at time of construction? I look forward to hearing more about how this important money-making communications tower can enhance(or at least blend with, and NOT detract from)the natural beauty and wildlife of Naples, Florida where we are so fortunate to live. Richard Eddy 3019 Poinciana Drive Naples,FL 34105 PS I doubt that Mr. Fleischmann who was a strong promoter of Naples (promoting the Zoo, and giving land on which the meeting was held, and selling the neighboring Freedom park area to the community)would have been in agreement with putting such a tower in our midst. 1 ReischlFred From: BEstesFL @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 7:16 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: PUDA-PL20120001128 Thank you, Fred. You have been very helpful. Please do send the staff report when it is ready. Brad Estes In a message dated 2/2/2015 6:03:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, FredReischlacolliergov.net writes: I will send several emails because the info is very graphics-intensive and I think one email may be too large. From: BEstesFL @aol.com [mailto:BEstesFL@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 12:09 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: PUDA-PL20120001128 Sure. Please send. Thank you, Brad Estes In a message dated 2/2/2015 9:07:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, FredReischl(a�collierciov.net writes: I have a lot of the info in PDF format.Will that work? From: BEstesFL @aol.com [mailto:BEstesFL @aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:28 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: PUDA-PL20120001128 Good morning Fred, 1 I am a property owner near the proposed cellular telephone tower in the Wilson Professional Center Planned Development. I would like to see the file for the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Please advise how I can accomplish that. Thank you, Brad Estes Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 Poinciana Civic Association of Naples, Inc. 3372 Poinciana Street Naples,FL 34105 239 961-8843 April 3,2015 Chairman Mark Strain Commissioners Planning Commission Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 RE: Wilson Professional Center PUDA-PL20120001128 Collier County,Florida Dear Chairman Strain and Commissioners: The Board of Directors of the Poinciana Civic Association of Naples,Inc. objects to the application by SBA Towers III LLC for a 150-foot communications tower at Wilson Professional Center. The Board voted unanimously to oppose this project at our meeting on March 26,2015. Our objection is based upon the tower's aesthetic incompatibility with our neighborhood. The Wilson Professional Center has had no negative aesthetic impact on Poinciana Village since it was first constructed. The installation of this tower would negate that. The center would become incompatible with the natural environment within and surrounding our neighborhood. Even though proposed to be a camouflaged tower, the tower's 150 foot height would be in stark contrast with the surrounding natural environment and Poinciana Village's unique visual character which even has underground utilities. The tower's height is approximately 100 feet above the existing tree line at Wilson Professional Center and 115 feet above the permitted maximum height of the structures. In addition,the application is inconsistent with the intent of the 1992 planned unit developed (PUD) that the Wilson Professional Center be aesthetically compatible with adjacent properties, including Poinciana Village. Our association worked closely with Collier County to assure compatibility at that time. Page Two The intent is evident by the many restrictions the PUD ordinance contains to assure aesthetic compatibility. Those include large setbacks, open space requirements, retention of natural vegetation,a privacy fence between the PUD and our neighborhood, restricted building heights, building design and use requirements, and signage restrictions. The PUD even requires that underground utilities and electrical transformers be located and screened so as to prevent viewing from any public street or adjacent property. In closing, the Wilson center tower would be the third communications tower in less than one half of a mile of Poinciana Village if this application is approved. We understand a tower is approved but not yet erected at Capital Center, Coach House Lane and Airport Road. Poinciana Elementary School has an existing tower. Thank you for consideration of our viewpoint. Sincerely, r :14 4 4 Kathryn M. Sickels President Cc: Fred Reischl, Senior Planner PUDA-PL20120001128 TRANSCRIPT OF NIM HELD ON 1-16-15 AT 6: 00PM REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT: LAURALEE G. WESTINE, ESQ. LAND OWNER: RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. COUNTY: FRED REISCHL MS. WESTINE INTRODUCED HERSELF, STATED THE PURPOSE WAS FOR THE BAILEY LANE COMMUNICATION TOWER, STATED THE DATE AS FRIDAY JANUARY 16, 2015, TIME AS 6: 02, AND THAT SHE REPRESENTED THE APPLICANT, SBA COMMUNICATIONS. SHE DESCRIBED THE TOWER AS A 150' MONOPINE TOWER. SHE HANDED OUT EXAMPLES MONOPINE TOWERS IN HILLSBOROUGH AND PINELLAS COUNTIES ALONG WITH PHOTOSIMULATIONS OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. SHE EXPLAINED THE BALLOON FLIGHT PROCESS FOR MAKING PHOTOSIMULATIONS. SHE EXPLAINED THE APPLICATION AS AN AMENDEMNT TO THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD. SHE THEN GAVE THE ATTENDEES COPIES OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR THE PUD, THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE PLAN, AND A PROPOSED ELEVATION OF THE TOWER. SHE STATED THAT THE ANTENNAS WILL BE HIDDEN BY THE TOWER'S BRANCHES. SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT 4 SETS OF ANTENNAS. SHE STATED THAT AT&T WILL BE FIRST TENANT AND THAT THERE IS SOME INTEREST IN THE TOWER FROM OTHER CARRIERS. AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHO SHE REPRESENTED AND SHE RESTATED THAT SHE REPRESENTS THE APPLICANT, SBA TOWERS. SHE EXPLAINED THE TOWER' S COLLOCATION CAPABILITY AS A "VERTICAL APARTMENT. " SHE STATED THAT THE Page 1 of 4 TOWER AND ITS BRANCHES WILL MEET THE COUNTY'S WIND SPEED REQUIREMENTS. SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE PAINTED BROWN AND GREEN BY SBA, THAT SBA WILL MAINETAIN THE TOWER AND LANDSCAPING, AND THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE THE TOWER IF IT WERE TO EVER BECOME NON COMPLIANT. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THE PUD IS THE "WILSON CENTER" AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUTH FLORIDA GROWERS ASSOCIATION. SHE THEN DESCRIBED THE USES OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS GENERALLY AND SHOWED THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE' S OFTEN ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT RF EMISSIONS, GUIDED THE ATTENDEES TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND THE FAA'S WEBSITE, AND OFFERED TO PRINT THE INFORMATION FOR ATTENDEES WHO COULD NOT ACCESS THE INTERNET. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, CELL TOWERS EMIT ROUGHLY 1/100TH THE ENERGY ALLOWABLE BY THE FCC. MS. WESTINE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE HOW MUCH OF THE TOWER' S SUPPORT POLE WILL BE COVERED BY BRANCHES. MS WESTINE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL HAVE A "MEDIUM DENSITY BRANCH" AND DISCUSSED VARIOUS QUALITIES OF BRANCH DESIGNS GENERALLY. AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHY THE TOWER HAD TO BE LOCATED WHERE IT WAS. MS. WESTINE DESCRIBED THE CELLULAR GRID AS A "HONEYCOMB" WHERE THE TOWERS HAVE TO BE LOCATED CLOSE ENOUGH TO "TALK" TO EACH OTHER. SHE ALSO STATED THAT AS DATA REQUIREMENTS OF CELLULAR USERS INCREAS, THE COVERAGE AREA OF CELL TOWERS GENERALLY DECREASE. AN ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER WOULD BE LIGHTED AFTER DARK. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAA TO ILLUMINATE THE TOWER AND THAT THEY DO NOT PLAN TO UNLESS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. MR. REISCHL STATED THAT SINCE THE TOWER WAS NOT IN AN APIRPORT ZONE, IT WOULD Page 2 of 4 NOT NEED TO BE ILLUMINATED. SHE STATED THAT THE COMPIOUND WILL HAVE SECURITY LIGHTING. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE PROPOSED TOWER WOULD PROMOTE THE LOCATION OF RED WINGED HAWKS TO THE AREA. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE TOWER WILL CREATE A DEMAND FOR A PARTICULAR BIRD IN THE AREA BUT SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL COMPLY WITH THE FCC AND THE FLA. DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE TOWER RULES FOR BIRD SAFETY ALONG WITH THEIR PROCEDURES FOR MAINTAINING THE TOWER IF BIRDS CHOOSE TO NEST ON THE PROPOSED TOWER. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER' S CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE DURING BIRD MIGRATION SEASON. MS. WESTINE LAID OUT A ROUGH TIMELINE FOR THE PROCESSES THAT FOLLOW THE MEETING AS 4 TO 6 MONTHS UNTIL 1 CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN. SHE STATED THAT FULL CONSTRUCTION TAKES 3 MONTHS BUT TOWER ERECTION TAKES 6 WEEKS. SHE GAVE A PROJECTED "ON AIR" DATE AS FIRST QUARTER OF 2016. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT A "NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT" OR "NEPA" ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE AND THAT SHE COULD MAIL A COPY TO HIM IF HE WANTED. THE ATTENDEE REQUESTED A COPY AND MS. WESTINE TOOK DOWN HIS ADDRESS. ANOTHER ATTENDEE STATED THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE DESIGN. SHE THEN PROCEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE REASONS THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE DESIGN. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF ANY PART OF THE ANTENNAS WOULD PROJECT OUTSIDE OF THE BRANCHES. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT IT WOULDN'T. THE ATTENDEE THEN STATED THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE INDUSTRY AND THAT THE DESIGN WAS BETTER THAN THE MINIMUM. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SBA ATTEMPTS TO FIT THE DESIGN TO THE AREA AND Page 3 of 4 DESCRIBED THAT THE MONOPINE DESIGN WAS SUPERIOR TO A FLAGPOLE BECAUSE THE FLAG WOULD GIVE THE TOWER A MUCH LARGER PROFILE THAN THE MONOPINE DESIGN. MS. WESTINE THEN OFFERED HER CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE ATTENDEES AGAIN IN CASE THEY HAD ANY FOLLOW--UP • QUESTIONS AFTER THE MEETING. MS. WESTINE RE-ITERATED THAT SBA WILL BE BOUND TO THE DESIGN THAT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. MS. WESTINE STATED THE TIME AS 6: 35 AND ASKED IF SHE COULD CLOSE THE MEETING. HAVING NO OBJECTION, SHE DID SUCH. Page 4 of 4 *to Cf\r) (c)efik 3Loos'— .c ic:ti-ika.) Foldy 3oi Pamice4A/4 DcZ_ Q44c oxir-t7 NiC1OLCL 4'404\ z/60/ +-1-A4ez,,Lis Tryck.) '7247 f-tAtais.Q5 1 I, a e 1 I tri t I I . — :: _ _ _. _ W Ii 0 2 I • I Y I 2 I Q A O Oi °""'^°^°°Rnaa2RXRaRn2R2ri.SA2° 2G224226222:22222651X,kFrX2kFG:0722 M2226622Rf^w 0 g 4 5 p-,__!....„ g Z p Y g LL:1Z qd i g a -I i g _1111g 1 /1 ? i t g R . 5� �e � _ ° : � - � . g r.q(;:-.1 diddi.iliditghlikignfiN s 1t e� ga g 2 e .1F4; 112 11J :rg" a aRaRRggigh-ha nE aa4iibihSRRRRARR9@REo�r MOIRRrva xs aiiMW2RRRaiRRs filAa MIthhilli i 6 19 i gig=liiiIiiiiillilihfillfialliiill"fflifiliMili11111411111-"A111111,11 IA T!-, g Z o �a 1 $ E' :I IIII11 _ I A ~ x 1/4..4 14 a Z� v I O %0 - w W Lutz., % C3 fet ,V r ,00 A, ,, P- 10 C3 is % L� y .e�waww Gl s 2A o r.:1 1 _ 't'WV' ,-,. f',_ i 0 0 g6 Or ) _ 0 CD E3 "1111.0411iMInstr, '',Wr""' .do . 00 0 ,, I lid ---, v cri & , a o CO F. J a tavoc° s WAS 0f e— .I O y_ " _ix,,,.*. 1z. 3 r R1-1 1-. 3 '1 Q. 86 ji ki4 _ , ,..... . ", ,�t Ili 'ME RIDGE RD j 87 " v -t 1 __ GRE 16 3 l 10 C31 .., 89 iril 4,- 4 L. i , , la A GOLDEN,GATE PKWY ' _ ' '- i trksi - - 62 . * 29 10 ri CI ED . r- j L ca vii :RADIORD - , IL 2 i Q .: � s, '=x 1 " - 1 — -- --- _- Ir r cr.3 ill Ce W m 2 ._i N M Ill l0 n 00 Q., 0 N M �, � � ^ - Z e„I .i rI I r4 rl ri N N N N N N N N N N M M M M a 4 2 1 i 1 z f-- 1 1 ,1 o co 2 ° Z 6 D 1- 0. z z a a o 2 a Z a L a - 0 0 o g F- C 06 0 a 0 O LL W Q el 0 cc cc w a J W\ 6 Z z J = a z 11.1 0 2 g o o m o w 2 z W O Z O a V U w rm C J N oW Q Z 0 --a w w w Z 0. a Z 0- z 0- 0. a O Z O w LU O t < 0 O 2 W X z n Z �F" 0 O > J w w O Z Z Z m o w Z Z c 0 Z o25 z a w a a w a w Z C1. 0. a 0. ? w a i.0 0_ w w j O O _11-1-1 F- O J F- _� F- F- F- O F- O Z I Z NJ CC m F- Z CC m Z m Z_ Z Z N_ Z i... aC F- Fxw- H w N F- m F- w Z Z N Z N m m H'4 oc ~ o ,0 m rj j O m O R m 2 oc m 00 F" 02S x o oc o6 O 025 ,2 06 oC 0C 0 O O 04 u+ w 2 F- a 2 a 2 a a a w a F- w I- i- w F- 2 F- w a F- w a F- 2 2 F- > F- a I- � F- in Inv1 > in a azaZ > aF- azin a > v1aF- F- a CA N 5 L CC z Z 3 Q to ed > -a > cc 1 1 w v., 3 5 -a m 0 0 0 0 Z -� m -� m m t� H 3 Z v a a ? -L v v au 3 er vi s m m m m m m . m 0 "> Ce a, +: al rn mn co co m To to m c a a� w a`, a`, >- a CO o W N > Cl) N N N N N _c Q 0 0 Q o W W W Y .I.+ 7 .** L _ = E E C y v l 3 t s CC CC CC ++ L L .0 a) U C I t — o m] o U o 0 7 > t+ ao - . cc cc vi C/1 in L > -a v a) o U o U m.3 U U U E E o i ma i m .-I v1 v1 v1 ri Ln m n M Q Q a a ma ra m co m co 0 U vi in ,n o o 0 0 0 I1 O •p-m In v1 01 0 ct N m In cn In ri Ir1 m m m ,,n In o rp-i N v) vi '.0 m N U U rI o In m O N I°n 0N0 01 *0 v1 V1 N CO 0 N CO tO N-1 0 0 Cr 0 Ilf O O CO 8 O N 0 .--I l0 00 01 00 001 N 1 ri Ch N N II .-1 ri .-i In N N l0 to Cr N N M e-i ri a-i 111 M 'c!• 111 vi ri r-I N CO N in 'Cr M 1 t I I i 1 1 i F r 1 t f [7 to tO N 00 C) 0 ri N m d' Ln tD r. 00 C) 0 ri N m et Li) to N 00 0) 0 .--1 N m in to N m m m m m m et v er ct 1. et to V) Lev M V) VI to Ln in in to to to to to to to tO 1 I • V a F- Z 2 d Z a 0 0 F- NJ CC 06 2 cot Lu Q w Q 1- Z � Z I- 6 Z \ o o a 0 a3 t- 2 a z Q O rc O o cc w w w m Z.LIJ 2 etc m` w w Z t 0 0 a U w 0 QS F— O Z F— at ° 0 -J 1- Fm- a2 NI I—Y3 QQ 1- 0 F' 0' LLI 2 n u > � ma a Z � "' m c m w °• - Z O O C6 1 0 Z O W G I- 0 n m 0_ CC N m F— w w Z m 1- 0 i 5 ,_ 2 Z WI X V U Q' Z V 0 Z Z. 4... 0 Z. n 2 a W Z 1 a a w w Z a �' \ Q w Z Z Z 1 Z m F- O F- O m ~ w F- w 0 0o m w 0 F- F- 0 w w w J Z 0 O O 06 O 2 w 2 oC os O 2 x 2 x as E O O x 2 a 06 2 I- x X I- O x 2 a a a a I- n 4 n > a n z n z a > I- I- Z > n a a n > a Z z z a I- Z a > > > m 0 7.2 Z Z CU > fa 1 0 00 f0 0 -6 e) 1 aY) 0) a) m 0 m m CC C' CC > L 0 C Y a cu m > -o 1 W CU Iti (a ea co co s- O L " CU a) a) 0J a) cu d a) Q O Z 0 V O C 0 3 I ✓ 0 0 U' w a) O O L L- N 41 al co c0 "O J Y to c p CO L m > Q Z F- GC , C C C C C "a L N O O �0 co �p co Y Y O cti t0 C7 N L ..0 Y Y Y Y O O 0 L 0 3 L 4) C a) ++ J A 0 W -aa CU CU -aa -a'a -a'a c 4- z = 4- E E E E C� _c aa)i " 0 = c i`= U > '�' a = Y u ■ 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 C7 3 3 C E Y C L. >, 2 O U O U 0 (7 t7 t7 t7 t7 t7 o ri O (7 W - O ,n Y f0 � a) 0 Z a a d '. a to tn to 0 to V 1-1 O) 0 0 m ri O en ri ri O co O O e!• to O N L!1 w O O in a1 n a N et O ri N m Cn et V) O O d C11 1� O V) d) O ri Q) N tC 1• O to 1-1 d' N e-1 in oo ri O N Qp Ln O 1s, N N. in tT .-i CO 00 0 ri e-1 of N O 0 O m 0t m tO tO O N O to O 00 in C) CO 0 0 t0 V) r-1 ■ ep 'Cr In Ln ri tp O) -$ %i N et V) 1� N 0) ri ri N ri N 00 CO in N to 00 m .-1 CO ri ri in V) ri CO 01 O e-I N en t!1 tD Ni co 01 O ei N M Tr tf1 tD N CO 01 O ri N en LP1 t0 N co to N. N N N N N N N N N co co co 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ol O1 Of 01 01 O, 01 O1 1 I 6 0. F- z a v) — 1 0. 0 Z o i 0 0 t m U W W LLI Lu • n i O F- J o6 oZ( m F- u 1 O O Q J J w 0 Q F- + BT) J 6 J N \ N C Z O O 'Z O J w DLO a. a w g O 1= 2 z z m Z F- O a oc N ZO ttTZ��q Nt W c W O O a p Z_ ZO NI a a \ W W O Q Sn Z �y NI I- F- J J Z z to to J cc j o2i Z I- F 02! w w — m a a 06 o_ a O a CO H m - 0 F- W W 2 N4 NI o- F- 0 2 olS 0_ cn v) F- cu I^ to c to O < O U F- < z z W w < W < F- �, � � a � � a � � � mac — a Jz a Zza •tZZ z a zzZ f z04 zz -S. W m O yJj O m O O w O O O O L j W O W O O w r N (('''' m N N Z 1... N N F F NJ F m F F, NJ NJ NJ L N N N o ?C X .z a I- W LU X LC W W w W W w W W W I I- w W W W c W W w LLI Z F- > Z Z F- > > to Z > > < < > < e < z > > > z F- z > H > > z O en M co A m Z Z W W W Q m N w t] 'L > Z w ❑cc c Q cc N` F` c m °� m CO CO +, ri Q z w I- WO F- Q vj cEo � a@ 0 - U C a3 N -Do Q F- F Q ❑ w Q l7 Cr r, 0 'E 'E O O E L- a, c v L. -a -Q c a ll a t^ to O 0 (1") 2 Q -a > E m m �a co r. o a� v c D c 0 co > 4-. 10 . H 0 07 O 1- F- O ' ' Q F ei 00 O co co N I- F- 0 o F- N m > > ,,,1 > rn rn C7 nr = a, ++ N h N N O O O F 1— 01 N > tD O r-I O -4 ei r-I O O O tD > cn lD I!1 r-I Lf1 N O en en 0 0 ei In O1 N O 01 r-I .--I 01 00 ei 0 u1 to N tD 0 01 2 .-I M Lf1 ri N tD t0 ti1 t0 0 O Co N 00 en 01 en 00 en O O S T-i 0 tD in M tD N M r-1 M en if1 it en N M M r-N r-I N N en 1--1 r-I N ri ct M N vi N r-I ei 1--I a 00 s Towers and Poles April 9, 2015 Mr. Mauricio Agredo SBA Network Services, Inc. 5900 Broken Sound Parkway Northwest Boca Raton, FL 33487 RE: Proposed 145' Sabre Monopole for Bailey Lane, FL Dear Mr. Agredo, Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced Sabre monopole for a Basic Wind Speed of 126 mph with no ice, Structure Class II, Exposure Category C and Topographic Category 1 in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA-222-G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas" and an Ultimate Wind Speed of 163 mph (Risk Category II), in accordance with the 2010 Florida Building Code. When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities include several safety factors, resulting in an overall minimum safety factor of 25%. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range of the built-in safety factors. Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built-in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used to design the monopole, the monopole will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing on itself. Please note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and manufactured by Sabre Towers & Poles. In the unlikely event of total separation, this would result in the portion above collapsing within a radius of 32 feet. 1. 4u 41 Sincerely, ,• •'�'° `F _� A ' er cr., win c . Robert E. Beacom, P.E. " RIUS40`R Design Engineer II Non Sabre Towers and Poles • _''_: I Murray Street • P.O Box 658 • Sioux City. 15 51102-0658 P: 712-258-6690 F. 712-279-0814 W:www SabreTowersanclPoles corn Page l ip LexisNexis'.. T-MOBILE SOUTH,LLC,PETITIONER v.CITY OF ROSWELL,GEORGIA No. 13-975. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 135 S.Ct.808; 190 L.Ed.2d 679;2015 U.S.LEXIS 612;83 U.S.L.W.4047;25 Fla.L. Weekly Fed.S 31;61 Comm.Reg.(P&F)1336 November 10,2014,Argued January 14,2015,Decided NOTICE: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides, in This preliminary Lexis version is unedited and sub- relevant [***5] part, that "[a]ny decision by a State or ject to revision. local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] ON WRIT OF CER- service facilities shall be in writing and supported by TIORARI TO THE UNH'ED STATES COURT OF substantial evidence contained in a written record." 110 APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Stat. 151, 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The question T-Mobile South,LLC v. City of Roswell,731 F.3d 1213, presented is whether, and in what form, localities must 2013 U.S.App.LEXIS 20027(l lth Cir.Ga.,2013) provide reasons when they deny telecommunication companies' applications to construct cell phone towers. DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded. We hold that localities must provide or make available their reasons,but that those reasons need not appear in the written denial letter or notice provided by the locality. COUNSEL: Jeffrey L. Fisher argued the cause for pe- Instead, the locality's reasons [*812] may appear in titioner. some other written record so long as the reasons are suf- ficiently clear and are provided or made accessible to the Ann O'Connell argued the cause for the United States,as applicant essentially [**686] contemporaneously with amicus curiae. the written denial letter or notice. Richard A.Carothers argued the cause for respondent I In JUDGES: SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of February 2010, petitioner T-Mobile South, LLC, the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER, applied to build a new, 108-foot-tall cell phone tower on AUTO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. AUTO, J., filed a 2.8 acres of vacant residential property in the city of concurring opinion. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting Roswell, Georgia (City). Roswell's city ordinances re- opinion in which GINSBURG, J.,joined, and in which quire that any cell phone tower proposed for a residential THOMAS J.,joined as to Part I. THOMAS J. filed a zoning district must take the form of an"alternative tower dissenting opinion. structure"—an[***61 artificial tree,clock tower,steeple, or light pole--that,in the opinion of the city council(City OPINION BY: SOTOMAYOR Council or Council), is "compatible with the natural set- ting and surrounding structures" and that effectively OPINION camouflages the tower. Code of Ordinances §§21.2.2, 21.2.5(a);see App. 68, 75.In accordance with these pro- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of visions,petitioner's application proposed a structure in the the Court. shape of an artificial tree or"monopine."Id,at 42. [ s Page 2 1 135 S.Ct.808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612,***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 1 r The City's Planning and Zoning Division reviewed of their properties.Id,at 176-177(hearing transcript);id, petitioner's application, along with a substantial number at 339-340(meeting minutes).The motion was seconded, of letters and petitions opposing it,and ultimately issued a and then passed unanimously. Id, at 177 (hearing tan- memorandum to the City Council concluding that the script);id,at 340(meeting minutes). application met all of the requirements set out in the City's Two days later,on April 14,2010,the Planning and ordinances. It recommended that the City Council ap- Zoning Division sent a letter to petitioner that said in its prove the application on three conditions to which peti- tioner was prepared to agree. entirety: l The City Council then held a 2-hour-long public "Please be advised the City of Roswell hearing on April 12,2010,to consider petitioner's appli- Mayor and City Council denied the request cation. Petitioner arranged privately to have the hearing from T-Mobile for a 108' mono-pine al- transcribed, and, as discussed below, the City subse- temative tower structure during their April quently issued detailed minutes summarizing the pro- 12, [***9] 2010 hearing. The minutes ceedings. At the hearing, after the Planning and Zoning from the aforementioned hearing may be Division presented its recommendation and after peti- obtained from the city clerk.Please contact tioner's [***7] representatives made a presentation in Sue Creel or Betsy Branch at [phone support of the application, a number of residents raised number]. concerns. Among these were concerns that the tower would lack aesthetic compatibility, that the technology "If you have any additional questions, was outdated and unnecessary, and that the tower would please contact me at[phone number]. Id, be too tall.Petitioner's representatives responded by reit- at 278. erating that it had met all of the ordinance's requirements and by providing testimony from a property appraiser that placement of cell phone towers does not reduce property The detailed written minutes of the hearing,however, values. were not approved and published by the City until 26 days Members of the City Council then commented on the later, on May 10, 2010. See id, at 321-341 (meeting application. One member of the six-person Council was minutes). 1 recused, see id,, at 111 (hearing transcript); id, at 322 (meeting minutes),leaving five voting members.Member 1 Brief minutes had been adopted on April 19, Igleheart said that other carriers had sufficient coverage in but these only noted that the motion to deny the the area and that the City did not need to level the playing application had passed with five members in favor field for petitioner.Id,at 173-174(hearing transcript).He and one member recused See Council Brief also stated that his "[b]ottom line" was that he did not 041210, online at think it was"appropriate for residentially zoned properties http://roswell.legistar.comlLegislationDetail.aspx to have the cell towers in their location." Id, at 174 ?ID=657578&GUID=08D5297C-0271-41F9-9D (hearing transcript); id, at 338 (meeting minutes). AA-E8E3DD6314BDD6341BD&Options=&Sear Member Dippolito found it difficult to believe that the 201(all Internet Materials as visited January 12, tower would not negatively impact the area and doubted 2015,and available in Clerk of Court s case file). that it would be compatible [***8] with the natural set- According to the meeting calendar for the City ting. Id, at 175-176 (hearing transcript); id, at 339 Council's May 10, 2010, meeting, it was on that (meeting minutes). Member Wynn expressed concerns day that the City Council approved detailed about the lack of a backup generator for emergency ser- minutes of the April 12 meeting that included a vices,id,at 172(hearing transcript),and did not think the recitation of each member s statements during the tower would be "compatible with this area," id, at 176 hearing. See p http://roswell.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?I (hearing transcript); id, at 339 (meeting minutes). D=101786&GUID=63 Member Orlans [**687] said only that he was im- 828B21-EB83-4485-B4EA-10EE65CF48CD&O pressed with the information put together by both sides. Id, at 173 (hearing transcript); id., at 337 (meeting ptions=info1&Search=. minutes). Finally,Member Price,the liaison to the Plan- On May 13, 2010, 3 days after the detailed minutes ning and Zoning Division, made a motion [*813] to were published--and now 29 days after the City denied deny the application. She said that the tower would be petitioner's application--petitioner filed suit in Federal aesthetically incompatible with the natural setting,that it District Court. It alleged that the denial [***10] of the would be too tall, and that its proximity to other homes application was not supported by substantial evidence in would adversely affect the neighbors and the resale value the record,and would effectively prohibit the provision of Page 3 135 S.Ct.808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612,***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 wireless service in violation of the Telecommunications applications to build cell phone towers. We answer that Act of 1996 (Act). The parties filed cross-motions for question in the affirmative. summary judgment. Our conclusion follows from the provisions of the The District Court granted petitioner's motion for Telecommunications Act. The Act generally preserves summary judgment,concluding that the City had violated "the traditional authority of state and local governments the Act when it failed to issue a written decision that [***12] to regulate the Iocation, construction, and stated the reasons for denying petitioner's application.The modification" of wireless communications facilities like District Court interpreted the Act to require that a written cell phone towers, but imposes "specific limitations" on denial letter or notice describe the reasons for the denial that authority.Rancho Palos Verdes v.Abrams,544 U.S. and that those reasons be sufficiently explained to allow a 113, 115, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316(2005);see reviewing court to evaluate them against the written rec- §332(c)(7)(B). One of those limitations is that any deci- ord. sion to deny a request to build a tower"shall be in writing The Eleventh Circuit reversed. 731 F. 3d 1213 and supported by substantial evidence contained in a (2013).It explained that,in T Mobile South, LLC v.Mil- written record." §332(c)(7)(B)(iii).Another is that parties ton, 728 F. 3d 1274(2013),which was decided after the adversely affected by a locality's decision may seek judi- District Court's decision in this case, it had held that "to cial review. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). In order to determine the extent that the decision must contain grounds or rea- whether a locality s denial was supported by substantial sons or explanations,it is sufficient if those are contained evidence, as Congress directed, courts must be able to identify the in a [**688] different written document or documents reason or reasons why the locality denied the that the applicant is given or has access to."Id,at 1285. application. See Rancho Palos Verdes,544 U. S.,at 128, The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the Courts of 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316(BREYER, J.,joined Appeals had split on that question,and that it had departed by O'Connor, Souter, and GINSBURG, JJ., concurring) from the [***11] majority rule. Compare Southwestern (observing that the Act"requires local zoning boards . .. Bell Mobile Systems,Inc. v. Todd,244 F.3d 51,60(CAI [to]give reasons for[their]denials m writing ). 2001)(requiring that a locality issue a written denial that The requirement that localities must provide reasons itself contains a"sufficient explanation of the reasons for when they deny applications is further underscored by the [*814] permit denial to allow a reviewing court to two of the other limitations on local authority set out in the evaluate the evidence in the record supporting those rea- Act. The Act provides that localities "shall not unrea- sons"); New Par v. Saginaw, 301 F. 3d 390, 395-396 sonably discriminate among providers of functionally (CA6 2002); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San equivalent services," and may not regulate the construe- Francisco, 400 F. 3d 715, 723 (CA9 2005), with AT&T Lion of personal wireless [***13] service facilities "on Wireless PCS, Inc.v.City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 the basis of the [**689] environmental effects of radio F. 3d 423,429 (CA4 1998)(holding that written minutes frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities of a meeting and the word "denied" stamped on a letter comply with the [Federal Communications Commis- describing the application were sufficient). Applying its sion's] regulations concerning such emissions." rule to this case, the Eleventh Circuit found that the re- §§332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), (iv). 2 Again, it would be consider- quirements of 47 U.S.C.§332(c)(7)(B)(iii)were satisfied ably more difficult for a reviewing court to determine because petitioner had its own transcript as well as a whether a locality had violated these substantive provi- written letter stating that the application had been denied sions if the locality were not obligated to state its reasons. and informing petitioner that it could obtain access to the minutes of the hearing. 731 F. 3d, at 1221. It did not 2 The last"limitation"listed in the Act provides consider when the City provided its written reasons to that localities shall act on applications to construct petitioner. personal wireless service facilities "within a rea- We granted certiorari,572 U.S. , 134 S.Ct.2136, sonable period of time after the request is duly 188 L.Ed.2d 1123(2014),and now reverse the judgment filed. . .taking into account the nature and scope of the Eleventh Circuit. of such request" §332(c)(7XB)(ii). [*815] This conclusion is not just commonsensi- II cal, but flows directly from Congress' use of the term "substantial evidence." The statutory phrase "substantial A evidence" is a "term of art" in administrative law that describes how"an administrative record is to be judged by The first question we answer is whether the statute a reviewing court." United States v.Carlo Bianchi&Co., requires localities to provide reasons when they deny 373 U. S. 709, 715, 83 S. Ct 1409, 10 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1963).There is no reason discernible from the text of the Page 4 135 S.Ct. 808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679, **; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612,***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 Act to think that Congress meant to use the phrase in a B different way. See FAA v. Cooper, 566 U. S. ,_, 182 L. Ed. 2d 497, 509 (2Q12) The second question we answer is whether these 132 S. Ct. 1441, 1449, reasons must appear in the same writing that conveys the ("[W]hen Congress employs a term of art, it presumably locality's denial of an application. We answer that ques- knows and adopts the cluster of ideas [***14] that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning tion in the negative. from which it was taken" (internal quotation marks Like our conclusion that localities must provide omitted)). Indeed,for those who consider legislative his- reasons, our conclusion that the reasons need not appear tory relevant, the Conference Report accompanying the in a denial letter[***16] follows from the statutory text. Act confirmed as much when it noted that "[t]he phrase Other than providing that a locality's reasons must be 'substantial evidence contained in a written record'is the given in writing, nothing in that [*816] text imposes traditional standard used for review of agency actions."H. any requirement that the reasons be given in any particular R.Conf.Rep.No. 104-458,p.208(1996). form. By employing the term "substantial evidence," Con- The Act's saving clause makes clear that, other than gress thus invoked, among other things, our recognition the enumerated limitations imposed on local governments that "the orderly functioning of the process of[substan- by the statute itself, "nothing in this chapter shall limit or tial-evidence] review requires that the grounds upon affect the authority of a State or local government or which the administrative agency acted be clearly dis- instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the closed," and that "courts cannot exercise their duty of placement, construction, and modification of personal [substantial-evidence] review unless they are advised of wireless service facilities." §332(cX7)(A). Given this the considerations underlying the action under review." language,and the system of"cooperative federalism" on SEC v.Chenery Corp.,318 U.S. 80,94,63 S.Ct.454,87 which the Act is premised,Rancho Palos Verdes,544 U. L. Ed. 626 (1943); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs.Assn. of S.,at 128, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316(BREYER, United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. J.,concurring),we understand the enumerated limitations Co.,463 U. S.29,43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 to set out an exclusive list. So while the text and structure (1983)(explaining that an agency must"articulate a sat- of the Act render it inescapable that localities must pro- isfactory explanation for its action" to enable substan- vide reasons in writing when they deny applications,we tial-evidence review); Beaumont, S. L. & W. R. Co.. v. can locate in the Act no command--either explicit or im- United States,282 U.S.74,86,51 S.Ct. 1,75 L.Ed.221 plicit--that localities must provide those reasons in a spe- (1930) ("Complete statements by the [agency] showing cific document. the grounds upon which its determinations rest are quite We therefore conclude that Congress imposed no as necessary as are opinions of lower courts setting forth the reasons on which they[***15] base their decisions., specific requirement on that front, but instead permitted localities to comply with their obligation to give written reasons [***17] so long as the Iocality's reasons are In response, the City primarily argues that a rea- stated clearly enough to enable judicial review.Although son-giving obligation would deprive it of local zoning the statute does not require a locality to provide its written authority. But Congress intended to place "specific limi- reasons in any particular format,and although a locality tations on the traditional authority of state and local gov- may rely on detailed meeting minutes as it did here, we ernments"regarding cell phone tower siting applications. agree with the Solicitor General that "the local govern- Rancho Palos Verdes,544 U. S.,at 115, 125 S.Ct. 1453, meat may be better served by including a separate state- 161 L. Ed. 2d 316. One of those "limitations," meat containing its reasons." Brief for United States as §332(c)(7)(B),necessarily implied by the Act's "substan- Amicus Curiae 26;see also id.,at 34.If the locality writes tial evidence"requirement,is that local [**690] zoning a short statement providing its reasons, the locality can authorities state their reasons when they deny applica- likely avoid prolonging the litigation--and adding expense Lions. to the taxpayers, the companies, and the legal sys- In short, the statutory text and structure, and the tem--while the parties argue about exactly what the concepts that Congress imported into the statutory sometimes voluminous record means. Moreover, in that framework, all point clearly toward the conclusion that circumstance, the locality need not worry that, upon re- localities must provide reasons when they deny cell phone view of the record,a court will either find that it could not tower siting applications. We stress, however, that these ascertain the locality's reasons or mistakenly ascribe to the reasons need not be elaborate or even sophisticated, but locality a rationale that was not in fact the reason for the rather,as discussed below,simply clear enough to enable locality s denial. judicial review. We hasten to add that a locality cannot stymie or burden the judicial review contemplated by the statute by 1 t f Page 5 r 135 S.Ct.808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; li 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612,***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 [ El delaying the release of its reasons for a substantial time reasons once those reasons are ready to be provided.Only after it [***18] conveys its [**691] written denial. once the denial is issued would the 30-day commence- 1 The statute provides that an entity adversely affected by a ment-of-suit clock begin.4 4' locality's decision may seek judicial review within 30 days of the decision. §332(c)(7)(BXv).Because an entity 4 The City urges us to hold that the clock does 1 may not be able to make a considered decision whether to not begin to run until after the reasons are given. seek judicial review without knowing the reasons for the We cannot so hold,however,without rewriting the 1 denial of its application, and because a court cannot re- statutory text.The Act provides that a lawsuit may view the denial without knowing the locality's reasons,the be filed by "[a]ny person adversely affected by locality must provide or make available its w r i t t e n reasons a n y final action or f a i l u r e to act.. .within 30 days at essentially the same time as it communicates its denial. after such action or failure to act." 47 U. S. C. 3 §332(cX7)(B)(v).The relevant"final action"is the [ issuance of the written notice of denial, not the 3 THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent rejects this subsequent issuance of reasons explaining the particular requirement,and instead invents a pro- denial. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, cess that turns judicial review on its head.Rather 177-178, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 137 L. Ed. 2d 281 than give effect to a process that would permit an (1997) (agency action is "final" if it"mark[s] the entity seeking to challenge a locality's decision to consummation of the agency's decisionmaking see the Iocality's written reasons before it files its process"and determines"rights or obligations"or suit--and the dissent agrees that the statute re- triggers "legal consequences" (internal quotation quires that a locality convey its reasons in writing, marks omitted)). see post,at 5--the dissent would fashion a world in which a locality can wait until a lawsuit is corn- III menced and a court orders it to state its reasons. The entity would thus be left to guess at what the Petitioner offers four reasons why, in its view, our locality's written reasons will be, write a corn- analysis in Part H-B is incorrect.Petitioner argues that the plaint that contains [***19] those hypotheses, statute requires that a locality's reasons appear in the and risk being sandbagged by the written reasons writing conveying the denial itself;but none of petitioner's that the locality subsequently provides in litigation reasons are persuasive. after the challenging entity has shown its cards. First,petitioner argues that the word"decision"in the The reviewing court would then need to ensure statute--the thing that must be "in writing"—connotes that those reasons are not post hoc rationalizations, [***21] a written document that itself [**692] pro- see Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, vides all the reasons for a given judgment. See Brief for 371 U. S. 156, 168,83 S.Ct.239,9 L.Ed.2d 207 Petitioner 24 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 407 (6th (1962), but the dissent offers no guidance as to ed. 1990) (a "decision" is a written document providing how are viewing court that has never seen "'the reasons given for [a] judgment"')). But even peti- near-contemporaneous reasons would conduct timer concedes,with its preferred dictionary in hand,that that inquiry. the word"decision" can also mean"something short of a [*817] This rule ought not to unduly burden local- statement of reasons explaining a determination." Brief ities given the range of ways in which localities can pro- for Petitioner 24(citing Black's Law Dictionary,at 407).' vide their reasons.Moreover,the denial itself needs only to be issued (or the application otherwise acted upon) 5 One of petitioner's amici argues that Congress "within a reasonable period of time."§332(c)(7)(BXii).In has used the word "decision" in the context of an interpretation we have recently upheld, see Arlington other communications laws to mean something v. FCC, 569 U. S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 185 L. Ed. 2d more than a judgment or verdict. See Brief for 941(2013), the Federal Communications Commission Chamber of Commerce of the United States of (FCC) has generally interpreted this provision to allow America(Chamber)et al.9-13.But while it is true localities 90 days to act on applications to place new that a word used across "the same act" should be antennas on existing towers and 150 days to act on other given the same meaning, see Taniguchi v. Kan siting applications.In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling Pacific Saipan,Ltd,566 U.S.__,_, 132 S.Ct. to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), 24 FCC 1997, 2005, 182 L. Ed. 2d 903, 914 (2012), the Red. 13994, 13995, ¶4 (2009). If a locality is not in a Chamber's evidence is less persuasive because it position to provide its reasons promptly,the locality can arises out of entirely different"acts" and does not delay the issuance of its denial within this 90-or 150-day involve any term of art. By relying on other parts window, and instead release it [***20] along with its of Title 47 of the U. S. Code--some enacted in the Page 6 135 S.Ct.808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612,***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 Communications Act of 1934 decades before the offered plausible [***24] bases for a rule that would IF enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require as much. See, e.g., Todd, 244 F. 3d, at 60 ("A !# at issue here--the Chamber stretches to invoke this written record can create difficulties in determining the ry [***22] canon of construction beyond its most rationale behind a board's decision. . .").Congress could forceful application. See A. Scalia & B. Gamer, adopt such a rule if it were so inclined,but it did not do so Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts in this statute. It is not our place to legislate another ap- 172-173 (2012). proach. Second,petitioner claims that other provisions in the N Act use the word"notify"when the Act means to impose only a requirement that a judgment be communicated. 6 Thus,we hold that the Act requires localities to pro- [*8181 Because the provision at issue here does not use vide reasons when they deny cell phone tower siting ap- the word "notify," petitioner argues, it must contemplate plications, but that the Act does not require localities to something more than a judgment.This does not logically provide those reasons in written denial letters or notices follow.For one thing,the statute at issue here does not use themselves.A locality may satisfy its statutory obligations any verb at all to describe the conveying of information if it states its reasons with sufficient clarity in some other from a locality to an applicant; it just says that a denial written record issued essentially contemporaneously with "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence the denial. In this case, the City provided its reasons in contained in a written record." §332(c)(7XBXiii). But writing and did so in the acceptable form of detailed more to the point,"notify"is a verb the use--or nonuse—of minutes of the City Council meeting. The City,however, which does not reveal what the thing to be notified of or did not provide its written reasons essentially contempo- about is. raneously with its written denial.Instead,the City issued those detailed minutes 26 days after the date of the written 6 For example,petitioner cites §11 (FCC must denial and just 4 days before petitioner's time to seek "notify the parties concerned" when it makes a judicial review would have expired. 'The City therefore "determination and order"regarding a railroad or did not [*819] comply with its [***25] statutory telegraph company's failure to maintain and op- obligations. We do not consider questions regarding the erate a telegraph line for public use) and applicability of principles of harmless error or questions §398(b)(5) ("Whenever the Secretary [of Com- of remedy, and leave those for the Eleventh Circuit to merce] makes a final determination. . . that a re- address on remand. cipient" of federal[***23] funds has engaged in impermissible discrimination, the Secretary shall 7 Though petitioner arranged for a transcript of "notify the recipient in writing of such determina- the meeting to be recorded on its own initiative tion. . .").Brief for Petitioner 24-25. and at its own expense,see App. 109-275,the fact Third, petitioner contends that the "substantial evi- that petitioner took steps to reduce oral statements made at the City Council meeting to writing can- dence"requirement itself demands that localities identify not be said to satisfy the obligation that Congress their reasons in their written denials. See Brief for Peti- placed on the City to state clearly its reasons,and tioner 23.Certainly,as discussed above,the phrase"sub- to do so in a writing it provides or makes available. stantial evidence"requires localities to give reasons,but it says nothing on its own about the document in which *** those reasons must be stated or presented to a reviewing court. For the foregoing reasons,we reverse the judgment Finally, petitioner invokes the statutory requirement below and remand the case for further proceedings con- that any adversely affected person shall have their chal- sistent with this opinion. lenge heard by a court "on an expedited basis." It is so ordered. §332(c)(7)(BXv). See Brief for Petitioner 14-15, 28. As long as the reasons are provided in a written record, CONCUR BY:ALITO however, and as long as they are provided in such a manner that is clear enough and prompt enough to enable CONCUR judicial review, there is no reason to require that those JUSTICE ALITO,concurring. reasons be provided in the written denial itself. I concur in the Court's opinion because I agree that We acknowledge that petitioner, along with those Congress, by using the term of Appeals [**693] that have required a local- tended evidence," in- Courts ity's reasons to appear in its written denial itself, have tended to invoke administrative law principles. One such principle, as the Court explains, is the requirement that Page 7 135 S.Ct. 808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612,***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 agencies give reasons. I write separately, however, be- provide its denial in writing. It did provide its denial in cause three other traditional administrative law principles writing.Nor does the City lose because the denial was not may also apply. supported by substantial evidence in a written record.The First, a court must "uphold a decision of less than City compiled a written record;whether that record con- ideal clarity[***26] if the agency's path may reasonably' tamed substantial evidence supporting the denial is not at be discerned." Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best issue here and has not been decided. Nor does the City Freight System,Inc.,419 U.S.281,286,95 S.Ct.438,42 lose because its denial was not accompanied [ 820] by L. Ed. 2d 447 (1974). In the context of 47 U. S. C. a statement of reasons apart from the written record. A §332(c)(7),which leaves in place almost the entirety of a sharp conflict had developed in the lower courts over the local government's authority, a succinct statement that a n***ssity of such a separate statement, and the Court [ 28] today squarely holds that one is not required. permit has been denied because the tower would be es- Ante, at 5, 8-11.No, the City instead loses because of a $ thetically incompatible with the surrounding area should question of timing: The written record was not made suffice.Nothing in this statute imposes an opinion-writing available roughly the same day as the denial--a require- requirement. ment found nowhere in the text of the statute. [**694] Second, even if a locality has erred, a The Court says this timing requirement is necessary court must not invalidate the locality's decision if the error for judicial review of whether the denial is supported by was harmless. "In administrative law, as in federal civil substantial evidence. A reviewing court, however, can and criminal litigation, there is a harmless error rule." carry out its function just as easily whether the record is National Assn. of Home Builders v.Defenders of Wildlife, submitted four weeks or four days before the lawsuit is 551 U. S. 644, 659-660, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 168 L. Ed.2d filed--or four days after, for that matter. The Court also 467 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, for supports its timing rule by saying that the company whose instance, I have trouble believing that T-Mobile South, application is denied needs the time to carefully consider LLC--which actively participated in the decisionmaking whether to seek review.But cell service providers are not process,including going so far as to transcribe the public Mom and Pop operations. As this case illustrates, they hearing—was prejudiced by the city of Roswell's delay in participate extensively in the local government proceed- providing a copy of the minutes. ings, and do not have to make last-second, uninformed Third,the ordinary rule in administrative law is that a decisions on whether to seek review. court must remand errors to the agency "except in rare [**695] The City here fully complied with its ob- circumstances." Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, ligations under the statute:It issued its decision in writing, 470 U. S. 729, 744, 105 S. Ct. 1598, 84 L. Ed. 2d 643 and it submitted a written record containing--so far as we (1985). Nothing we say today should be read to suggest know--substantial evidence supporting that decision. I that when a locality has erred, the inevitable remedy is respectfully [***29] dissent from the Court's contrary that a tower must be built. The Court has not passed on conclusion. what remedial powers a "court [***27] of competent jurisdiction" may exercise. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). This un- answered question is important given the federalism im- plications of this statute. Section 332(c)(7), enacted as part of the Telecom- I do not understand the Court's opinion to disagree munications Act of 1996, places several limits on local governments'authority to regulate the siting of cell towers with this analysis. On that understanding, I join the and other telecommunications facilities. A locality's reg- Court's opinion. ulations must not unreasonably discriminate among ser- vice BY:ROBERTS;THOMAS vice providers, effectively prohibit the provision of ser- vice, or rest on concerns about the environmental effects DISSENT of radio emissions. See §§332(c)(7)(B)(i), (iv). In addi- tion,the provision central to this case specifies that"[a]ny CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS,with whom JUSTICE decision by a State or local government . . . to deny a GINSBURG joins, and with whom JUSTICE THOMAS request to place,construct,or modify" a cell tower"shall joins as to Part I,dissenting. be in writing and supported by substantial evidence con- tained in a written record." §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). And an- The statute at issue in this case provides that "[a]ny other provision authorizes expedited judicial review of a decision. . .to deny a request. . . shall be in writing and locality's alleged failure to comply with these rules. See supported by substantial evidence contained in a written §332(cx7)(B)(v). record." 47 U. S. C. §332(cX7)(B)(iii). The Court con- cludes that the City loses this case not because it failed to 1 Page 8 135 S.Ct.808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612, ***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 After the city council of Roswell voted to deny must include "a statement of the reasons for the deci- T-Mobile's application to build a cell tower,the City sent sion"). T-Mobile a short letter that announced the denial but Given the commonplace nature [***32] of express provided no further explanation. The question T-Mobile requirements that reasons be given--and the inclusion of has presented to this Court is whether such a letter satis- such provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act,the fies the decision . . . in writing"requirement of Section original Communications Act, and another provision of 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).See Pet.for Cert.i. the Telecommunications Act--the absence of one in Sec- I would hold [***30] it does. The City's letter was tion 332(c)(7)(BXiii) is telling, and supports reading certainly in writing. And i t certainly memorialized t h e "decision . . . in writing" to demand nothing more than denial of T-Mobile's application.So T-Mobile's only hope what it says: a written document that communicates the is that the lack of explanation for the denial means the town's denial. letter is not truly a "decision." But like the majority, I In my view,resolving that interpretive question in the reject T-Mobile's contention that the term "decision" City's favor also resolves the case as it stands in this inherently demands a statement of reasons. Dictionary Court. Although Section 332(c)(7XB)(iii) oes on to definitions support that conclusion.See ante,at 12(citing goes s Law Dictionary); require that a denial be"supported by substantial evidence ary};see also B.Gamer,A Dictionary contained in a written record,"the adequacy of the City's of Modern Legal Usage 251 (2d ed. 1995) (grouping written "decision"with"judgment,"as distinct from"opinion"). Circuit noted in its opinion be ow ,the"sole issue"Eleventh A comparison between Section 332(cX7)(B)(iii)and it was the "in writing" requirement; it did not examine other statutory provisions that were on the books in 1996 whether the City's denial was supported by substantial also suggests that when Congress wants decisionmakers evidence. 731 F. 3d 1213, 1221, n. 7 (2013). The Court to supply explanations, it says so. Consider first the Ad- today also--correctly--does not decide whether substantial ministrative Procedure Act. In the context of formal ad- evidence supported the City's denial. The Eleventh Cir- judication and rulemaking,it demands that"decisions. . . cuit's judgment therefore ought to be affirmed and the include a statement of. . . [*821] findings and conclu- case remanded to the District Court for further proceed- sions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the mate- ings on T-Mobile's remaining challenges. rial issues." 5 U. S. C. §557(cXA) (1994 ed.) (emphasis added). Even in informal proceedings, an agency must II give prompt notice of the denial of a written application, and, "[e]xce t in affirming a prior denial or when the The Court agrees that the City was not required [***3 j denial is self-explantory, the notice shall be [***33] to explain its reasoning in its denial letter,but it accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for de- nonetheless rules for T-Mobile. The improbable linchpin nial." §555(e)(emphasis added). of this outcome is the City's failure to finalize the minutes of the April 12 city council meeting until May 10. Im- The Communications Act of 1934, which the Tele- probable because,so far as I can tell,T-Mobile never even communications Act overhauled, itself contains a similar mentioned this timeline,let alone based an argument on it, express requirement. Section 309 allows an interested in its filings in the lower courts or its petition for certio- party to petition the Federal Communications Commis- rani. Nor did the Eleventh Circuit address this timing sion to deny a license application.47 U.S. C. §309(d)(1) question in any way. Cf.Zivotofsky v. Clinton,566 U. S. (1994 ed.). If the FCC decides to grant an application , 132 S. Ct. 1421, 1430, 182 L.Ed.2d 423,433 despite such a petition,it must"issue [**696] a concise (2012)("Ordinarily,we do not decide in the first instance statement of the reasons for denying the petition." issues not decided below." (internal quotation marks §309(dX2). And a provision added along with Section omitted)). 332(cX7) in the Telecommunications Act provides that [*822] The Court nonetheless rules against Ro- when the FCC grants or denies a petition for regulatory swell on this ground, proceeding in two steps: First it forbearance, it "shall explain its decision in writing." concludes that a town must provide written reasons in §160(c)(2000 ed.)(emphasis added).Many other statutes some form (the minutes being the only candidate here); in effect in 1996 could be added to the list.See,e.g.,19 U. then it decides a town must make those reasons available S. C. §1515(a) (1994 ed)(notice of customs protest de- "essentially contemporaneously" with its decision (the nial "shall include a statement of the reasons for the de- nial"); 30 U. S. C. §944 (1994 ed) (individual whose final minutes were not).Ante,at 14.In my view,the first claim for black lung benefits"is denied shall receive.. .a step is justified by the statutory text,but the second is not. written statement of the reasons for denial"); 38 U. S. C. The need to provide reasons in some form follows §5104(b)(1994 ed.)(notice of denial of veterans benefits from the portion of [**697] Section 332(c)(7XB)(iii) requiring that denials be "supported by substantial evi- Page 9 135 S.Ct. 808, *; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612,***;83 U.S.L.W.4047 dence contained in a written record." [***34] Like the in cases addressing Section 332(cX7), the relevant local majority, I read this phrase as specifying a familiar authority has held an open meeting at which the applicant standard of review to be used if a denial is challenged in was present and the issues publicly aired.In this case and court And like the majority, I agree that substantial evi- [*823] others, T-Mobile has brought its own court re- deuce review requires that a decisionmaker's reasons be porter, ensuring that it has a verbatim transcript of the identifiable in the written record. If a reviewing court meeting well before the town is likely to fmalize [**698] cannot identify any of a town's reasons for denying an its minutes. See Brief for Petitioner 12, n. 2; T-Mobile application, it cannot determine whether substantial evi- South, LLC v. City of Milton, Georgia, 728 F. 3d 1274, deuce supports those reasons,and the town loses. 1277(CAl1 2013). I strongly doubt that a sophisticated, But then the Court goes a step further and creates a well-lawyered company like T-Mobile--with extensive timing rule: A town must provide "its written reasons at experience with these particular types of proceed- essentially the same time as it communicates its denial." ings—would have any trouble consulting its interests and Ante,at 10.This timing rule is nowhere to be found in the deciding whether to seek review before it had received a text of Section 332(c)(7)(B)—text that expressly estab- written explanation from the town. The Court worries fishes other time limits, both general and specific. See about towns"sandbagg[ing]"companies with unexpected 332 c 7 u (requiring localities to act on siting reasons,ante,at 10,n.3,but if those reasons in fact come 1 § ( x )( ) ( g out of nowhere, they will not be [***37] supported by requests within a reasonable period of time"); substantial evidence in the record. And if the company's §332(cX7)(B)(v) (giving injured parties 30 days to seek initial complaint mistakes the town's reasoning, the judicial review). Despite its assertion that the statute's company will have no difficulty amending its allegations. "enumerated limitations" constitute "an exclusive list," See Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 15(a). ante, at 9, the Court offers two justifications for its in- ference of this additional,unenumerated limitation. In sum,there is nothing impractical about reading the The first is that "a court cannot review the denial statutory text to require only that the reasons implied by without knowing the locality's [***35] reasons," so it the term"substantial evidence"be discernible to the court when it conducts substantial evidence review.Demanding would"stymie"judicial review to allow delay between the „ issuance of the decision and the statement of reasons. essentially contemporaneous written reasons adds a Ante, at 10. This makes little sense. The Court's "essen- requirement that Congress has included expressly in many tially contemporaneous" requirement presumably means other statutes,but not in this one. See supra,at 3-4. the town must produce its reasons within a matter of days *** (though the majority never says how many). But a re- viewing court does not need to be able to discern the For the foregoing reasons, the Court's opinion and town's reasons within mere days of the decision. At that judgment are wrong. But this is not a"the sky is falling" point no one has even asked the court to review the denial. dissent. At the end of the day, the impact on cities and The fact that a court cannot conduct review without towns across the Nation should be small, although the knowing the reasons simply means that if the town has not new unwritten requirement could be a trap for the unwary already made the record available, it must do so by hamlet or two.All a local government need do is withhold whatever deadline the court sets. The court should pro- its final decision until the minutes are typed up,and make ceed "on an expedited basis," §332(c)(7)(B)(v), but that the final decision and the record of proceedings (with hardly means it will need the record within days of the discernible reasons)available together. town's decision.And in this case there is no indication that Today's decision is nonetheless a bad break for Ro- the City's submission of the written record was untimely swell. Or maybe not. The Court leaves open the question or delayed the District Court's review. of remedy,ante,at 14,and it may[***38] be that failure The Court's second justification focuses on the de- to comply with the "in writing"requirement as construed nied applicant, which must choose within 30 days from by the Court can be excused as harmless error in appro- the denial whether to take the town to court priate cases. It is hard to see where the harm is here. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). "[W]ithout knowing the locality's rea- T-Mobile somehow managed to make the tough call to sons,"the majority says,the applicant[***36] "may not seek review of the denial of an application it had spent be able to make a considered decision whether to seek months and many thousands of dollars to obtain,based on judicial review." Ante, at 10. This concern might have a hearing it had attended. And nothing about Roswell's force if towns routinely made these decisions in secret, failure to meet the "contemporaneously" requirement closed-door proceedings, or if applicants were unsophis- delayed,much less"stymied,"judicial review. ticated actors.But the local zoning board or town council The Court today resolves the conflict over whether a is not the Star Chamber, and a telecommunications town must provide a statement of reasons with its final company is no babe in the legal woods.Almost invariably Page 10 135 S.Ct. 808,*; 190 L.Ed.2d 679,**; 2015 U.S.LEXIS 612, ***; 83 U.S.L.W.4047 decision, apart from the written record. We now know it finds no support in the text or structure of the statute.We need not.As the Court explains, "nothing in[the]text[of have been unwilling to impose procedural requirements the Act] imposes any requirement that the reasons be on federal agencies in the absence of statutory command, given in any particular form," and there is "in the Act no even while [*824] recognizing that an agency's failure command--either explicit or implicit--that localities must to make its decisions known at the time it acts may burden provide those reasons in a specific document."Ante,at 9. regulated parties. See, e.g., Pension Benefit Guaranty Good analysis--which also should have been followed to Corporation v.LTVCorp.,496 U.S.633,653-655, 110 S. reject the timing requirement the Court creates today. Ct.2668, 110 L.Ed.2d 579(1990).When a State vests its I respectfully dissent. municipalities with authority to exercise a core state power, those municipalities deserve at least as much re- JUSTICE THOMAS,dissenting. spect as a federal agency. But today, the majority treats them as less than conscripts in"the national bureaucratic I join Part I of THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent,which army," FERC v. Mississippi,456 U. S. 742, 775, 102 S. says all the Court needed to say to [***39] resolve this Ct 2126,72 L.Ed.2d 532(1982)(O'Connor,J.,concur- case.I [**699] write separately to express my concern ring in part and dissenting in part).I respectfully dissent. about the Court's eagerness to reach beyond the bounds of the present dispute to create a timing requirement that 1 • { GF� I§s If g�g