Loading...
CCPC Agenda 08/20/2015 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 20, 2015 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 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. ATTENTION: TWO OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DSAC) MAY BE PRESENT AND MAY PARTICIPATE AT THE MEETING. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS MEETING MAY BE A FUTURE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION AT A FUTURE DSAC MEETING. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—July 16,2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. DISCUSSION A. Discussion on sidewalks [Coordinator:Mike Bosi,Director,Zoning] 8. CONSENT AGENDA 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTE: This item has been continued from the August 6,2015 CCPC meeting: A. PUDA-PL20140000548: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2003-11, the East Gateway Planned Unit Development, by adding 250 residential dwelling units to be developed in addition to the commercial development on the commercial development area or as an alternative to industrial and business park development on the industrial business park development area; by changing the name of the planned unit development to the East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; by adding Permitted Uses for residential development; by adding Development Standards for residential development; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by adding Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Road Right-of-Way Cross Sections; by revising Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and west of CR 951 in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37.5± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] B. PUDA-PL20150000178: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 95-33, the Briarwood PUD, as amended, to add upscale storage facilities as a principal use in Tracts B & C: Community Commercial, to add accessory uses associated with upscale storage facilities as an accessory use in Tracts B & C: Community Commercial, to add minimum standards for upscale storage facilities, to increase the maximum floor area for upscale storage facilities in Tracts B & C: Community Commercial from 20% of the commercial land area to 40% of the commercial land area, to add a deviation allowing an alternative Type D landscape buffer along Livingston Road and Radio Road, to allow architectural review of properties without recorded covenants or deed restrictions to be regulated by architectural review standards of the Land Development Code at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat approval, to add a new Alternative Landscaping exhibit for Livingston Road and Radio Road, and to add a new Conceptual Master Plan for the upscale storage facility, for the PUD property consisting of 209.17± acres located on the east side of Livingston Road, north of Radio Road, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM,Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 July 16, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida July 16,2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: Mark Strain,Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Brian Doyle Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Page 1 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,July 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before we do roll call,I want to welcome Andy Solis,our new member from North Naples,sitting right next to Stan,between Diane and Stan. Andy,welcome to the Board. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom Eastman will not be here today. He has an excused absence. And with that I'll ask the secretary to do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good thing we waited a second. Good morning. Mr.Eastman is absent. Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Doyle? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ***Addenda to the agenda. There's been a request to continue Item 9.D indefinitely.It's the Dockside PUD,also known as the Henderson Creek Docks. So if anybody is here for that item,there's a request to continue indefinitely. And that-- MR.BELLOWS: We had one registered speaker for that item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,is that person still here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody still here registered to talk about the Docks PUD Henderson Creek? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that gentleman came up to talk to me,I explained to him it was being continued indefinitely,so that's probably why he's not here. It is interesting,though,from the last meeting that he attended and the one prior to that,he left his name and phone number with staff to be contacted prior to these meetings.He's yet to be contacted. So whoever is in charge of that,please make sure the gentleman's called from here forward. And with that,I'll entertain a motion from the Planning Commission to continue Item BD-PL20140002207. It will be continued indefinitely. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make that motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen,seconded by Diane. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. Page 2 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries,and we're 7-0 today. The first in quite a while for this board. ***That takes us to Planning Commission absences. We have two meetings in August. One will be August 6th and the other August 20th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be available for either one of those today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,at this point we'll still have quorums. We're good. ***Approval of minutes. There was a special set of electronic minutes sent out for the special meeting LDC on June 8th,2015. Were there any changes or corrections noted to those? Anybody see? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah,just on Page 2 where it said"family" should have been Planning Commission. It said family commission absences,it should be Planning Commission.And that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's a good catch. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve with that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made by Karen. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. ***That gets us to the BCC report and recaps. Ray,it was their last meeting on July 7th, I believe. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for Honda--Germain Honda. That was approved 5-0,subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. Then the Board also approved on their summary agenda the PUD amendment for Lely Resort and the PUD amendment for Lane Park. Those were also approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. ***Then the Chairman's Report. The only issue I'd like to bring up today is an update on the sidewalk discussion item we're going to have on August 20th. And I don't know,Ray,who--and someone on staff I know is working on that between Mike Sawyer and Mike Bosi. Are we on line with that? Have the contacts been made? Have we got any acknowledgments back? MR. BELLOWS: Yes,this is being worked on,and I believe Mr.Bosi will provide a little more details. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.BOSI: Good morning,Planning Commissioners,Mike Bosi,Director of Planning and Zoning. I've reached out to a number of different advocate groups for the pedestrian discussion that we plan Page 3 of 66 July 16, 2015 on having on the 20th,the Blue Zone individuals that were chosen from the Collier County Health Department,Naples Pathway Coalition. I also spoke at DSAC,let them know of the upcoming meeting,let the development community know of the opportunity to come and put their perspective in regarding the sidewalk discussion that we have on the 20th. Tentatively addressing a--an agenda. And just from the Planning Commission standpoint,the way that I was envisioning it was having an overall staff basically make a presentation in terms of what is required in terms of in the LDC how sidewalks and pedestrian pathways are addressed at the GMP level,and then just open it up for the general discussion. I'm not sure,maybe we can refine that a little bit more based upon some of the Planning Commission's individual preferences. I didn't want to have to set one group as a priority in front of the other group in terms of,you know, the order of which we'll have the presentations that are being made. I really just envision an open conversation discussion with everyone who wanted to put forward their perspective on it and maybe have some dialogue right now with the Planning Commission to see how they would like to have that agenda further developed or refined as we move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My thoughts on it were to keep it informal. I will make an introductory statement as to why and how we got to where we are. I certainly would expect staff to explain the situation from both the GMP and LDC perspective. You have some departments that specialize and deal with these. I expect those individuals as staff members to be next and explain where their departments are and what they're looking for. And then I want to turn it over to the members of the public who have special interest in this or concerns and would like to at least express their opinions to us so we get an overall picture. I definitely want it to be kept more informal. I'm seeking discussion,not intimidation,so it would be nice to be able to have an open discussion with everybody. MR.BOSI: And with that direction,I would most certainly follow with the continuation of that format with the very--a very loose format,but also,you know,having staff put forward,you know,the information as what's currently required and then just open it up for that discussion,as suggested by the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not just what's required,but if you could give us a little background as to why certain things are required,you know,widths,why both sides of the road. You know, why. MR.BOSI: Well,I will most certainly see if I can find the research. I mean,right now our Land Development Code requires it on both sides of the road and I can maybe find out when we incorporated that component into the LDC and see the motivation of the backup that was provided for that and to be able to give maybe more of a context as to the reasons. And I'll take that direction and-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And any what you do, I would prefer to know the why you do it. MR.BOSI: Okay,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also found out earlier this week that the Board of County Commissioners originally was--I was told was going to have a landscape workshop in November, December. I understand now that's evolved into a new streets workshop in which they may be as well talking about sidewalks. So I think the Planning Commission was going to seek its information for our understanding of the subject,but we all should stay tuned for the November workshop of the Board and see how that workshop addresses the same issue. MR.BOSI: And that has come into a little bit more focus,we've had some vertical conversation with the administration,some of the individual commissioners,and their desire to be able to maybe summarize the activity that we have on the 20th of August with the Planning Commission discussions and Page 4 of 66 July 16, 2015 whatever decisions or whatever that does come out of our meeting on the 20th,to be able to summarize that and put forward. That is a component for some of the factors that may be discussed at that workshop,and I most certainly--I'll be the person who will be able to convey that or summarize it,if that's the consent of the Planning Commission in terms of,you know,all the aspects that we deal with on the 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think to have the Board adding that or making that part of their agenda as well. They set policy,so the outcome of our research and theirs,whatever policy they establish will sure provide direction as we go forward. MR.BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm looking forward to that. MR.BOSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think you meant complete streets,not new streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,I did. I'm sorry,you're right. ***Okay,that takes us to 8,consent agenda items,there are none from the last meeting. ***So that moves us into our first advertised public hearings. There are two of them on the same matter. We will discuss them jointly,but we will vote on them separately. The first one is for DOA-PL20150000545,it's the Toll Gate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact. It's at the interchange of I-75 and 951,Collier Boulevard. And the second companion item is PUDA-PL20150000281. The same,but that's the Toll Gate Commercial Center PUD. Same location. With that,all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. We'll start with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I have a conflict and will not be participating. Sky Angel Holdings,LLC is a client of our firm's and so I won't be participating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with staff and this morning I talked with Mr.Hood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had a phone conversation with Fred Hood and I believe that's the only conversation I can recall right now. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Nothing. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,Fred,one thing I have to remark,you're moving a phase line-- MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that will encompass or change the uses on a few lots to some of the uses that are already allowed on the other side of the phase line,and for that it took 816 pages of submission? MR.HOOD: It took 816 pages of submission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just shocked at the amount of paper that that one generated. MR.HOOD: Yeah,we took a few trees down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sure did. It's all yours,sir. MR.HOOD: Thank you. Mr.Chairman, Commissioners,good morning. For the record,Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering. I'm here to represent Sky Angel,LLC for a PUD amendment to the Toll Gate Commercial Center PUD. Page 5 of 66 July 16, 2015 The Toll Gate Center PUD is situated at the northeast corner of the intersections of Collier and Beck Boulevard,and is approximately 100.23 acres. Toll Gate Commercial Center is bound on three sides by federal,state and county maintained right-of-ways: I-75 to the north,Beck Boulevard to the south,Collier Boulevard to the west,respectively. Along the eastern boundary a Florida Highway Patrol station situated with ag.zoning. Forest Glen of Naples PUD,a residential community,is situated on the southern side of Beck Boulevard. A developed C-4 and the I-75 Alligator Alley CPUD properties are situated on the western edge of the Collier Boulevard right-of-way across from Toll Gate. The purpose of this PUD amendment: The applicant is seeking to amend the zoning delineation line that separates parcels A and parcels B and their land uses. The result of this line adjustment will provide parcel B light industrial land uses on tract 16 through 20 which totally approximate about 8.93 acres. Per Ordinance 92-10,A--parcel A lots consist of commercial only land uses that will serve the motoring public using Interstate 1-75 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services on area-wide nature for the Naples,Marco Island,Golden Gate and Immokalee service areas(sic). Parcel B lots consist of commercial and light and industrial land uses that which in addition to the uses permitted on parcel A lots are used for the sale,service and transportation and storage and distribution of goods and services to the traveling public along 1-75. The property within the PUD that is subject of this application is currently undeveloped and has existing access to Tollhouse Drive and Bush Boulevard. The subject property will utilize these existing right-of-ways to provide adequate ingress and egress,and there are no new ingress and egress points or right-of-ways being proposed for this amendment. The change as proposed is consistent with the Collier County LDC and Growth Management Plan and that the permitted land uses have already been approved and are permitted as principal and accessory uses within their approved Toll Gate Commercial Center PUD. The proposed amendment will continue to meet or exceed all buffer requirements 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 services on those utilities. The revised conceptual master plan,which is--you have that,yes--shows a land use line change. All the other PUD and LDC requirements remain intact with the previously approved PUD. All required vehicular and pedestrian interconnections shall be adhered to with the development of any future projects on the subject property. The proposed land use change will result in increased development options for a limited defined acreage,yet will not cause any detrimental level of service impacts to the surrounding areas. And with that,I'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions on this one? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,but I was going to make a comment similar to yours,but I measure by inches and not pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many inches did it have? I don't have pages,I get electronic. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Fred,I did,as I usually do,I--you forced me to read 816 pages. I didn't like that very well. MR.HOOD: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there were plenty of things there that may be questioned,but they aren't relative to the small change you're making here today,so I don't have any questions on this particular action either as a DRI or as a PUD. So with that,we'll move to staff report. MS.GUNDLACH: Good morning,commissioners. For the record,Nancy Gundlach,Principal Page 6 of 66 July 16, 2015 Planner with Zoning Services. And staff is recommending approval of the Toll Gate DOA this morning. And just with one clarification. You do have copies of the proposed master plan in your packets,but it exists as Exhibit B and is attached to the DOA resolution,or should be attached. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's not different than the plan that's already in our packet in other areas. MS.GUNDLACH: Correct. They're both the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Fred,you don't need a rebuttal, I don't believe. So with that,we'll close the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion. We'll start with the DRI. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve DOA-PL20150000545,Toll Gate Commercial Center. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Charlette. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 with one abstention. Is there a motion on the PUD? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can also make that motion. Just let me find it here. I make a motion to approve PUDA-PL20150000281. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Charlette. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 with one abstention. Thank you,Fred. That was probably the simplest project you ever brought forward. MR.HOOD: I tried to make it quick for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ***Okay,our next item up is 9.C. It's PUDA-PL20120001128. It's the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development PUD at the corner of Airport Pulling Road and Bailey Lane. Page 7 of 66 July 16, 2015 All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have no disclosures,but I'm curious why we have dueling court reporters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That has happened before. Sometimes the private applicant wants--requests their own court reporter.They can get their transcript probably quicker than ours gets approved and processed through the county,so that may be the reason. Or she could be here for another reason. But that's what my assumption is. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosure, Stan? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry,did you have any--that was--okay,Andy has no disclosures. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have spoke with staff several times on this. And I want to first of all thank them,because when this was--originally came up we were missing some information. And Fred and Mike Bosi did get a list of all our towers,that it did not have that before,so it's very interesting in that list. And I want to thank the people that put that together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on my part,I have talked with the applicant,Lauralee. I'm sorry,I don't remember your last name,Lauralee. MS. WESTINE: Westine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your associate in the office,Matt. MS. WESTINE: Mattaniah Jahn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Richard Yovanovich was at the meeting. I can't remember who else. But I don't believe other than that I've had--oh,I've had a couple contacts from the residences(sic)that are in our packet by email,and Mr.Estes talked to me during the--before the start-up this morning about how long he wasn't going to be allowed to discuss his issues with us. So with that,that's the end of my disclosures. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did talk to Mr.Yovanovich before the last time we didn't have this. And there were emails from the last time and this time that I read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Just residential emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,I talked to Mr.Yovanovich the last time this petition was scheduled before that hearing. And I also did a site visit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? I just remembered. How long ago was it,three,four months? MR.YOVANOVICH: Several months ago. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Several months ago. Okay. Yeah,I talked to him many, many months ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you, Stan. With that,Lauralee,it's all yours. MS.WESTINE: Good morning. My name is Lauralee Westine, 800 Tarpon Woods Boulevard, Palm Harbor,Florida. And I have been sworn. I'm here before you representing SBA and AT&T. SBA is the tower company,AT&T is the wireless carrier. I have with me today Mr.Dan Mullins,who is AT-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lauralee, I know you're probably used to this from your county,but Page 8 of 66 July 16, 2015 she--our court reporter needs you to slow down a little bit. She just gave me that look. So if you could,just kind of take it a little easy for her. MS.WESTINE: Holler at me. Out of habit,nerves. I'll do my best. I have Dan Mullins here with me today who is the AT&T radio frequency engineer,and I'll be having him testify kind of more as a package later in the hearing. I have Michael Checchio who is with Sabre Towers,as well as a Florida general contractor,as well as Yan Wang who is a professional engineer with Morrison Hershfield. As a housekeeping matter and just because I haven't done anything in your county before,do I need to move staffs report and all their backup into the record as part of the record?Is that already there or do I need to actually ask for a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding,it's already part of the record. I'll confirm with Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Could you repeat the question,please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fact that the staff report and all the documents that we've been issued are currently part of the record,do they need to be reentered into the record again? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's up to you. But,you know,as part of your package it's part of the official record. MS. WESTINE: So as long as it's already part of the official record,then that answers my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding it always has been,but I just wanted--since you asked the question specifically, I wanted to get your reassurance that it would be,so-- MS.WESTINE: Thanks. I'm before you here today with staffs professional recommendation of approval for 150-foot monopine tower. We are adding it as a use to the Wilson Professional Center PUD. We have four deviations within there,as well as we added some dimensional standards for the monopine itself. And as I go through this,I'm going to pop up some--it may just be easier for me to use this mic. I'm going to pop up some photographs.This is an actual monopine telecommunication tower that's located in Pinellas County. This was actually shown at our NIM. And this is--for the record,that is MP-1. This is MP-2. This is a photograph of that exact same monopine,it's just taken from a different angle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say--I'm sorry,what location is this in? MS. WESTINE: Those are both at--well,that's one tower from two different directions,but it's in Pinellas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what zoning district it's in in Pinellas? MS.WESTINE: It's at a veterinary hospital. And I'm embarrassed to tell you,I zoned that so I should know it,but it's at a veterinary hospital. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you were from Pinellas so I reviewed some of their communication tower restrictions,and we'll ask about those later. But that's why I was curious what zoning district. Thank you. MS.WESTINE: This is a third photograph. It's marked for exhibit as MP-3,and that is in Hillsborough County. The monopine,just so--although I'm sure you all have read the staff report,I'll kind of hit some highlights. The monopine,we've decided to measure it from the flange,the most exterior location that we can. To the south it's 229.5 feet;to the west it's 32 feet;and any accessory structures to the south would be 190.5 feet;and to the west 10 feet. The tower has been limited to a maximum height of 150 feet. Your Tower Code does actually allow a one-time extension in order to promote collocation. It is my understanding the way we've written this that the maximum height of this tower will be only 150 feet. This tower can support up to four users,which is something that your Tower Code doesn't really actually require shared use until you get over about 185 feet. But in this particular instance the tower's been designed for four users. That's on Page A-3 of the site plan that you all had in your backup material. There are four deviations. The first is from 3.05.07(h)(3). That's simply memorializing that there's no preserve setback when this was originally approved. There wasn't a requirement for that. And that's Page 9 of 66 July 16,2015 simply to--to memorialize that,that's not really changing anything within. The second is from 5.05.09(G)(2)(a). This is--your Tower Code requires that a tower be located 2.5 times the tower height from any residential district. In this particular instance,to the south we have RMF-6, and we are proposing that that be located 229.5 feet instead of the required 375. Your Tower Code does allow us to ask for a variance. In fact it specifically says to use the variance criteria. And I will,as I go through--I'm kind of just hitting the highlights,but I do have a presentation on those criteria specifically. The third is from 4.06.02(C)(1),as well as 4.06.05(B)(2)(c). Those are both landscaping. We are not requesting--and I'm kind of putting them together. We're not requesting to put in less landscaping,we're simply asking that the buffer width be minimized. And we've added that to the PUD language with a dimension which you'll find as Exhibit B. The preserve area is--we're still providing 1.31 acres of preserve so we're not asking for any decrease in the required.51 acres. Your staff has found that we're consistent with the GMP and consistent with the surrounding area. Your environmental staff has reviewed this application and found that we're consistent with the CCMW. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down a little bit. MS.WESTINE: I'm sorry. I'm going to take a deep breath. You'll find within the backup material that we provided you,we provided you what our--what we call our NEPA. It's something that goes up to the FCC. It looks at your--it's a wildlife study,it's a historical resources study. On one of the prior hearings Commissioner Strain had realized that there was a scrivener's error that it was applied for at 130 versus the 150. We have since,and I'll flop that up in a minute but we have since reapplied. We've provided that and there is still no impact,whether it was at the 130 or the 150. In fact,let me put that letter up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you take that picture off that's on,is that tower a 150-foot tower as well? MS. WESTINE: This is a--this is a hundred--it's either 150 or 160. And this one in Pinellas County has been increased from 90 feet to I believe 40 feet was added so that would be 130. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question while we have the photo up as well. MS.WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Do you have a number of antennas that are currently on that picture that you're showing us? MS. WESTINE: This tower--actually,yes.Well,I can tell you it's full. I don't know the exact number of towers. I know-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Roughly. MS. WESTINE: --there's multiples. At least three,because I added the top one. So at least three. There might even be four on this one. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,so you-- MS.WESTINE: But it's full and that's why we had to extend the height. And there's only a one-time extension in Pinellas County. Let me put up some photo simulations that we did,which will--I'm going to start with--and I'm going to go back and forth. What we've done is in order to give you all some perspective as to what this tower will look like once it's up in the air,we fly a balloon to the proposed height and then we actually simulate in what the tower would look like. What we've done is,you'll look here,there's A,there's B,there's C,there's D.These are the directions. And then E is way up here. These are the directions from which the photographs were taken. So I'm going to flip back and forth. This is from A,which was taken over here.This is the before photo;this will be the after photo. Going to B,which is taken from the south,this is the before photo and this is the after photo. You Page 10 of 66 July 16, 2015 can see the monopole there--I'm sorry,monopine there. PS-4,which is view C. View C is taken from over here. This is prior to the monopine being simulated in. This is after. And I'll point to it. It's up there. PS-5,which is view D,which is taken from further east. MR.REISCHL: West. MS.WESTINE: I'm sorry,west. Thank you. You'll see before the simulation,and then here's the monopine after the simulation. The final is view E,which is taken from the north. And you'll see before the simulation and then after the simulation you can see the top of the monopine. And that's PS-6. And I'll provide these to the clerk so that they all make it into the record. One of the concerns--we had two NIMs in this case. The first was back on May 9th of 2013. We didn't have--other than having an owner's representative attend and staff,there were just the three of us present for that May 9th,2013 meeting. In that case 272 notices were sent for that one. We then hosted a second NIM on January 16th of this year. In that case we had three attendees other than staff and Mr.Yovanovich and myself. And we did--we did--those are the photographs that I showed at the NIM that I showed you today. One of the questions that came up at the NIM was basically talking about wildlife and talking about birds. And one of the things that your code is very clear on is the preservation of wildlife,which is why I brought up the NEPA. At that point I was able to allow that gentleman to have a copy of our NEPA so that he could look at it and he could review it. And that has determined,as well as your staff has determined,that we will not be impacting any of the wildlife within the area. I'm going to put up an aerial that's been marked as AR-1. And the point--as I go through this,I just want to put this all in perspective. I know that I'd heard some of you had done site visits. But the green dot is where we--is where the tower is proposed to go. You can see we've got Airport Pulling over here,you've got Bailey here,you've got the church to the west,and you've got the neighborhood to the south. One of the things that I do want to point out is you've got this building here that's screening and buffering the tower from the neighborhood to the south,as well as you've got the dense vegetation,not only on our property but as well as on the church property to the west of us. With that said,unless you have any questions with regard to this, I'd like to get Mr.Mullins up who's our radio frequency engineer. I do have kind of a specific presentation that I'd like to put forward with him, and I don't want to jump back and forth,it's easier if I just let him testify. But I--how would you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted you to know,it's not for lack of questions,but I think the more of your presentation you show to us,maybe that will reduce some of the questions we have. So unless someone objects,why don't we just move forward with your presentation. MS. WESTINE: Perfect. If I could ask Mr.Mullin to come up for me,please. I do have for your record what has been marked as RF-1 as an exhibit. That is Mr.Mullin's CV,or resume'. I'm going to ask him to speak into the standing microphone,and then if I need him to come over here we can share. We'll pull that off. Could you please state your name for the record? MR.MULLIN: My name is Daniel Mullin. I'm from--my address is 1310 Southeast 15th Street in Cape Coral,Florida. I have been sworn. MS. WESTINE: Who do you work for,sir? MR.MULLIN: I work for AT&T. MS. WESTINE: And what is the address of your AT&T office? MR.MULLIN: It's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you take that off,please leave that on;I want to see the lower part of it. Thank you. MS.WESTINE: Did I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The lower part was cut off. I didn't get a chance to see his education background. Page 11 of 66 July 16, 2015 Go ahead,sir,I'm sorry. MS.WESTINE: Where is your AT&T office? MR.MULLIN: It's located on Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers. MS.WESTINE: How long have you worked in wireless,in telecommunication? MR.MULLIN: Since 1989. About 26 years. MS.WESTINE: How long have you been with AT&T? MR.MULLIN: I've been with my present job with AT&T for 23 years. That includes--they backdated my AT&T time back to when I was with Wireless One of Southwest Florida. MS. WESTINE: And what roles have you played within AT&T? MR.MULLIN: I was a cell site technician,then an RF engineer,traffic engineer,optimization engineer. MS.WESTINE: And what is your current role,sir? MR.MULLIN: Currently I'm an optimization engineer. MS. WESTINE: And what is your educational background? MR.MULLIN: I have an associate's degree in computer science and I have taken courses from George Washington University. MS.WESTINE: Does AT&T or do any of the other manufacturers,for example the products that you use,do they provide additional training? MR.MULLIN: Absolutely,I'm trained--every year I have different training courses that I have to go through. AT&T has their own training courses. I've been trained by Ericsson,by Nokia,Motorola and others various vendors. MS.WESTINE: At this time,sir,and I don't know if I need to be as formal,but I would tender Mr. Mullin as an expert in radio frequency engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some questions. First of all,you said you have an associates arts degree? MR.MULLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's generally a two-year degree. But under digital computer electronics you acknowledge a one-year degree. MR.MULLIN: That is a technical degree.That is in addition to the associate's degree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said you were an optimizational engineer. Can you explain what that is? MR.MULLIN: Optimizational engineer is we make changes to the system to help it work better to make sure it performs at its optimum best. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By working better,what do you mean by that? MR.MULLIN: Fewer dropped calls,higher speeds for your downloads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What impacts those kind of features? MR.MULLIN: The antenna types,the tower heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The distance between towers? MR.MULLIN: Distance between towers,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that directly relates to the positioning of this particular tower. MR.MULLIN: Yes,it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I have no objection to you being entered-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as an expert. Does anybody else? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious. You said you were a traffic engineering. MR.MULLIN: Cellular traffic,as far as wireless traffic. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's what I figured. We get a lot of traffic engineers in this town. MR.MULLIN: Yeah,I wouldn't qualify for that type of traffic engineer,that's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objections from the Planning Commission? Page 12 of 66 July 16, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,he'll be tendered as an expert. Thank you. MS.WESTINE: Thank you. Let's kind of start. How does AT&T decide that they need a new site in an area? MR. MULLIN: That goes by the performance of the sites in the area,as well as we have third-party drive tests. MS. WESTINE: Can you explain real quick what is a third-party drive test? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lauralee,we don't normally have a dual party working to a presentation. Usually the applicant provides the presentation. And you asking the questions is what we're supposed to do. Does he have a manner in which he can present a prepared presentation that he intended to speak on,say with a list of topics,or do you--or this is the only way you normally do it? You're used to it this way? I'm not trying to-- MS. WESTINE: I--candidly I'll be very honest with you,candidly this is what I thought would get to the heart of the matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a little different procedure than what we're used to. I'm not saying it's wrong,I'm just trying to figure out if--if anybody else has any concerns? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,I like it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,go ahead,Lauralee,that's fine with me. I wanted to--there are other land use attorneys in this room. I don't want to give them bad ideas. If--so-- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a great idea. MS.WESTINE: So we were talking about third-party drive tests,so let's go back to that. Would you explain to the board what a third-party drive test is? MR.MULLIN: For instance,JD Powers has awards for different things. And we have different vendors,like we have a GWS and a RootMetrics. They come in,they're not part of AT&T,they do an independent drive test. They test all the different carriers. They test AT&T, Verizon,T-Mobile,whoever we have in the market. They drive throughout the area,in this case Naples,and then they report--they publish their reports. Now,we--so we don't actually hire the company to do it but we take their reports and we go through them and we try to find out where we have poor coverage areas and we try to optimize the best we can. And sometimes going through optimization there's a need for a new tower. MS. WESTINE: I don't want to talk about locating sites. Can a new tower site be simply located anywhere? MR.MULLIN: No,there's already strict guidelines from AT&T. And they're engineering guidelines. And it depends on the distance between the sites in a certain area. So if we had sites packed close together,the search ring is a very narrowly defined area. If we're out in a rural area,we can move it a little bit here or there. But when you're in an area that has quite a few towers already,it's pretty confined,maybe as small as an eighth of a mile for an area like this. MS.WESTINE: Would you consider--I was just about to say,would you consider this area a confined area where there are surrounding towers? MR.MULLIN: Yes,we have towers northeast,northwest,to the south and to the southwest. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question,if you don't mind. Could you please define search ring? MR.MULLIN: What a search ring is,is we take the area that we're looking at putting a tower in, and then we try to find the center of that area,and from that center we then put a radius,let's say an eighth of a mile,from the center of that area. And that is our search ring. So it would be like an eighth of a mile radius from the center of the area we're trying to cover. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And what happens in that search ring? MR.MULLIN: And then we give it to a vendor because we don't build our own towers anymore, and we ask the vendor to go out and do the search to find locations,to find towers that are already in the area that we could go on,and to report back to us their recommendations of where they would build the tower for Page 13 of 66 July 16, 2015 us. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So that search ring doesn't have anything to do with transmission? MR.MULLIN: It has to do with transmission as far as you don't want the search ring off center because then you're going to be transmitting in an area that you don't want to be--you don't want your primary coverage in an area you already have good coverage. MS.WESTINE: I think I may be able to clarify that. I think what you're asking is,is the search ring showing what is propagating from the site. And in fact the search ring is just the area in which--and I'm going to call it a search area,not--even though those of us old school we still call them search rings. But it's really more of a search area,and it's basically saying this is the limited area in which you can look for a site so that these sites can talk to each other. And it will fill the gap or fill the hole. And what I don't want to leave you with is that the tower's popped in the middle and then an eighth of a mile out is the only coverage.And I may have misunderstood your question,but-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No,that clarified his responses. MS.WESTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So your search ring has an eighth of a mile distance--flexibility, maybe that's a better word. MR.MULLIN: In this case,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Lauralee-- MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you are introducing a lot of information that is not in our packet.Unlike the first application today,we had more information than we need. On yours you're providing information that's not--at least I have not heard some of this within that packet. I think it's best if we--if the Planning Commission asks some of our questions as we go along,because by the time you finish we're going to be well past where we may have needed to ask a question. So with that in mind,I need to talk to you about drive optimization need. How do you determine where and how you need to drive to understand your optimizing criteria? MR.MULLIN: Well,the drive is--an independent company does the driving,so they determine what roads they drive on. So if it be GWS,be RootMetrics or it be another driver,they drive the major roads in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do they pick the spot,though,where they believe there is a need? MR.MULLIN: They don't pick the spot. We take that and we look at the drive data they give us. It shows us where there's good coverage,where there's poor coverage,and we look at the area specifically where there's poor coverage to try to optimize our network to better cover the area where there is poor coverage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In optimizing and determining your optimization of your network, do you look at the existing towers and how they could be modified rather than just decide to put a new tower in somewhere? MR.MULLIN: It's always cheaper to modify an existing tower,and that's always our first place we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in your selection of this site that we're talking about today,before you selected the site,you looked at the tower site surrounding it,which there are plenty, and you came to the determination you couldn't raise those towers,you couldn't add more magnitude to those towers so they'd function better? MR.MULLIN: As soon as you start raising towers you start pushing the coverage beyond the next tower,and that starts causing interference. And by--just by raising a tower you could cause a problem at another site and just past the other site. So we also look at,the drive tests not only gives us the how good it is,you know,whether a signal's strong or weak,it also--the drive test also gives us information on how much interference that area has. So if you just raise a tower,you're going to be causing interference in other areas which actually degrade the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,by interference to other areas,are you talking about your particular Page 14 of 66 July 16, 2015 vendor,which in this case is AT&T,or other vendors like Sprint,Verizon and the others that are in the marketplace? MR.MULLIN: Well,I'm going to strictly talk about AT&T. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So AT&T's towers being too close together could actually hamper AT&T's abilities? MR.MULLIN: If we're too tall. Okay,so what we do is if we raise the tower,that pushes the coverage out further. The coverage goes out beyond the next tower and causes interference past the next tower,so we can't just raise the tower to fill a hole. Because then we cause an interference problem in another area within Naples. MS.WESTINE: Can I clarify one thing,though. But you of--one of his questions was that you have maximized the surrounding sites. MR.MULLIN: We have. MS. WESTINE: Okay. You were just addressing the height issue. I wanted to make sure-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was trying to understand that if you find the necessity for this tower in the location you've chosen how you then assess the other towers as being deficient enough that this tower would be needed at the height it's at and the location it's at. MR.MULLIN: We do have some-- MS.WESTINE: I have maps--I have propagation studies that will be able to help explain that. If there aren't any other questions,I-- MR.MULLIN: Propagation and capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette's got a question. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,I have a question reference this drive test. When the companies who conduct the drive test report back to you,are their results day-parted? MR.MULLIN: Are they? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Day-parted. Meaning is the time of the day-- MR.MULLIN: They're time stamped,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: They're time stamped. So your analysis is not only coverage,but coverage at certain points of the day? MR.MULLIN: Yes. Coverage,interference and capacity. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And so you have some of in that to show us today? MR.MULLIN: We don't--we have some of that,yes. We don't have the actual drive tests. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The companies that do the drive tests,did I understand that they're not related to AT&T? MR.MULLIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why do they do the drive tests? Who hires them? MR.MULLIN: Well,AT&T does pay money,but so do all the other companies. So it's not like we hired them or they're part of us. We pay part of the money,but we don't pay the full amount. And it's to compare between the different vendors,between us and Verizon or T Mobile. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So they just found an itch and they're filling it. MR.MULLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But are they hired by the cellular companies? MS.WESTINE: No. The concept is,for example,JD Powers. JD Powers will say number one in customer service. And so what they do is they actually go out and they hire their own companies,they actually have the antennas from all the carriers in a car,and they actually will drive an area and they'll find out who drops where,who has good coverage,who has bad coverage. And then they actually publish that coverage. Obviously it is to AT&T or to T Mobile or to any of the other carrier's benefit to cooperate, provided they believe they have good coverage in an area. And I don't say that to be silly,but this is something that they've done so that there can be comparators within the market. An example I would give is what's the magazine,Consumer Reports. If you think about it,it's similar to the way Consumer Reports does their,you know,best TV's,best sofas,things Page 15 of 66 July 16, 2015 like that. That's essentially what these third parties do so that they can then produce a study that they can then sell advertising in and things like that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Can you please tell me what is the normal height of your towers? MR.MULLIN: If we go out into the rural area,we can be up at 240,300 feet. Let's say--our site on Rock Road is about 240 feet.Within the general confines of Naples,we're probably more around 135 feet. We have the street--the cell site on Shirley Street that's at 180 feet. We have the one at the intersection of Pine Ridge and I-75,we're at 135 feet there. We have one over on Iberia Bank on Goodlette and Golden Gate,we're at 135 there. We have one on Commercial,between Golden Gate and Radio Road,and we're 135 feet there. So typically within Naples we're 135, 150 feet. And like I said, Shirley is one of the exceptions. It's a much older site and we're at 180 feet there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. When did the monopole come into being? This is something new,this new pole where it collapses on itself? MR.MULLIN: I would have to ask a tower engineer for that. MS.WESTINE: I have a gentleman here from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We ought to stay right to his subject while he's up there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just stay with what he's an expert in and then we'll move to the others as they're brought up,okay? Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. You said JD Powers makes a routine patrol to determine coverage. Does this work-- MR.MULLIN: It's like JD Power. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,whatever. MR.MULLIN: I don't know if JD Power does it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. But is it like--let me give you an example. Comcast.If someone were to assess Comcast--let's forget about their customer relations,that's bad enough,but their coverage and how well things are received by their cable. During the daytime and late at night it never seems to be a problem,but at the peak hour it's horrible.Now,is that the situation that this company that drives around is checking at the peak hour or are they checking off hours? Or does it matter? MR.MULLIN: They drive all day long.They typically start at 8:00 in the morning and finish at about 6:00 to 8:00 at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't have any idea when their concerns were noted in the demand for this particular tower? MR.MULLIN: I could look at the data and find that out. But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we don't build--for example,in our transportation system,we don't build for the twelfth month,we build for the top 10 months--or the lower 10 months. The top two peek months we don't build for the Easter Sunday for the churches,we build for a typical. And I'm just wondering if your system takes that into consideration.Are you looking for the worst case scenario at the worst time of the worst day of the worst week? MR.MULLIN: We don't use strictly drive tests. That's only part of it and that's actually a lesser part. We use our metrics that we collect 24 hours a day. And we typically build for the busy hours,2:00 through 5:00 for the month. So we don't build for the busiest hour of the month,we build for hours 2:00 through 5:00 is typically where we take our metrics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. MS.WESTINE: Any other questions? Can I jump into our plots? Dan,I'm going to have you--well,can you look up there to-- MR.MULLIN: Yes. Page 16 of 66 July 16,2015 MS.WESTINE: I'm showing you what's been marked as RF-5. It's dated February 17th,2015. It's titled Airport Pulling coverage plots. Are you familiar with this document? MR.MULLIN: Yes,I am. MS.WESTINE: And what is it? MR.MULLIN: It's a document that shows this particular-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Excuse me,could we zoom in,please? MS. WESTINE: Let me do this: I'm showing you now what is RF-6. It is intended coverage area with population density. It has a rectangle in the middle of it. And then it shows the Airport Pulling site,our proposed site in the middle. Would you explain to this board what this shows? MR.MULLIN: This shows the area that we have problems and that we want the new cell site to cover this area. MS.WESTINE: Now,I want to be clear. That rectangle,does that rectangle show a search area? MR.MULLIN: No,it does not. MS.WESTINE: Does that rectangle show a coverage area? MR.MULLIN: It shows a coverage area,not a search area. MS.WESTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question from that document. What do the brown triangles represent? MR.MULLIN: The triangles represent femtocells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of cells? You knew that was going to be another question. MS.WESTINE: I need you to spell it for the court reporters,please. MR.MULLIN: F-E-M-T-O-C-E-L-L-S. It's a femtocell. It is a product we sell to customers who have poor indoor coverage.They want something to help their indoor coverage,so we sell them a femtocell so that when they get into their house they can still use their cellular phone. Because they were unable or very unsatisfied with the coverage we give them within their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you just said within their house. MR.MULLIN: In their house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean the coverage is lacking because they're inside their house versus it's fine if they stand out in their backyard? MR.MULLIN: It may be fine in the backyard,but that's--this map doesn't tell us that. The femtocell locations don't tell us that either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the lack of coverage due then to the tower or to the construction of the home? MR.MULLIN: Within the home most of the time it's with the construction of the home,or the distance to a tower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the femco(sic)boosters,as you may want to call them,aren't really something because of lack of cell tower coverage,they're based on a construction technique that possibly homes have like radiant barriers or other things that may interfere with radio waives. Is that-- MR.MULLIN: Yeah,we can't tell on any individual case whether there's--from this whether they got the femtocell because of indoor coverage only or outdoor coverage. That gets back to we look at our metrics and we look at our drive testing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that depreciates the value that this may offer for at least consideration. The location that you show with that circle or it's almost an oval with an arrow towards the bottom where it says Airport Pulling next to it,what is that supposed to represent? The site? MS. WESTINE: This is the tower location.Airport Pulling,that's the proposed SBA tower locations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's on the wrong side of Airport Road,that's why I was wondering. You're on the west side of Airport Road. MS. WESTINE: It's just a general ballpark. Can I clarify something? Page 17 of 66 July 16,2015 MR.MULLIN: That would be where our search ring would have most likely been centered,around that spot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would it had made a difference if your search rings were centered to the west on the opposite side of the road?Because you're in Grey Oaks right in that location. MR.MULLIN: Right. And that's why we can't build there. So that's why we have somebody go out and look for--and,you know,take the search ring from that area. An eighth of a mile goes over to the other side of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So the optimum location,if you could have the tower placed anywhere you wanted it,is over in Grey Oaks? MR.MULLIN: That would be the number one spot. But that's--we're not even going to try to go there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question about this square,if you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: What is the coverage of the square itself that's depicted on this chart? How many miles is that,square miles? MR.MULLIN: I do not know. MS.WESTINE: I actually do,ma'am. Its width is 2.4 to 2.5,and then its height is one and a half north-south. So it's one and a half miles north-south. It's about 2.4,or 2.5 east-west. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: On one of your exhibits you had the adjacent towers indicated on one of our exhibits. Where are they in relationship to this square? MS.WESTINE: If I can get to the next page,you'll actually see we've actually done propagation studies that show where they are. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. And we'll have to slide that down. MS.WESTINE: Okay, let me do this. I am now showing you RF-7. RF-7 says existing scenario coverage at about 46 percent population. Would you explain to the board what this is. MR.MULLIN: Okay,so what that's saying is within the rectangle we provide coverage to--indoor coverage of 46 percent to a good or a fair coverage level. Which means we're--we have poor or no coverage for 54 percent of the indoor coverage. MS.WESTINE: Let me ask you real quick to go through this. I'm sorry. There's signal levels down here on the far left corner. MR.MULLIN: Yes. MS. WESTINE: The top one says neg.75. Can you explain what neg.75 is? MR.MULLIN: Neg. 75-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Could I ask a question? Is this exhibit in the materials in our book? MS.WESTINE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,most of what you've shown us is not within our packet. This is all new information. MS. WESTINE: It is. Candidly because it needs to be explained by a--I mean,I can put these in your package and it's as other boards have called them,they're blob maps. So unless they come with the engineer explaining them,they don't usually help. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because I had asked staff for this type of information and staff told me it wasn't available,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think I have too. We're used to seeing information that we can try and attempt to decipher ourselves and then through that we ask questions of the applicant. So it would have been nice to have this in our packet. Go ahead,Andy,I didn't mean to interrupt. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well,no,I think it just makes it difficult to having seen this for the first time there's a lot of information on this and we're trying to understand it on the fly,it just makes it a little more difficult to understand. Page 18 of 66 July 16,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which brings the question,you've got different colorations there and you've got signal levels associated with those colors on the bottom. Why is one color any better than the other and how does that degrade or improve the signal reception? MR.MULLIN: Okay,the colors represent a certain signal strength. So if we're at a neg.75 signal strength we have good indoor coverage. And that would be the red. If we're at a neg. 85,which is 10 db worse,we're at a fair coverage level for indoor. And then if we go even further into the greens and blues, we're getting to where it's poor or no indoor coverage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on the bottom in your scale,the higher the number on the right-hand side,the worse coverage it represents;is that what you're saying? MR.MULLIN: Well,they're negative numbers,so the higher number is neg. 75. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,yeah,stronger,okay. MS.WESTINE: Can you describe what this--what does the 46 percent mean at the very stop of the-- MR.MULLIN: The 46 percent-- MS.WESTINE: Show it like that. MR. MULLIN: --is--represents the indoor coverage percentage,the percentage where we have good indoor coverage. So throughout the rectangle we have good indoor coverage or fair in 46 percent of this area. MS.WESTINE: Okay. I'm going to show you now what's been marked as RF-8. And this says SBA candidate serving 93 percent population. Can you tell the board what this document is or what it reflects. MR.MULLIN: It reflects our predicted coverage of the new cell site. MS.WESTINE: I'm going to point to,it says Airport Pulling,and that is the proposed Wilson Professional Center location,yes? MR.MULLIN: It's probably still the--in Grey Oaks,isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,it's on the wrong side of the road but I understand where you're trying to go. MR.MULLIN: Yes,it's within the very narrow search ring so we still can use this as a good example of what we're going to get. So we're going to improve from 46 percent of good or fair indoor coverage to 93 percent of good to fair indoor coverage. MS.WESTINE: I want to talk,do we keep using the word optimal? Help this board understand what optimal is. Is optimal perfect? MR.MULLIN: No optimal is not perfect.Optimal gives us good or fair coverage. MS.WESTINE: So you're not seeking to,as I like to say,hit a home run,you're seeking more of a double? MR.MULLIN: Okay,we can go with that. MS.WESTINE: And I think that goes to Commissioner Strain,your point earlier is are you building this or are you doing something for your absolute peak points at the absolute pinnacle,or are you doing something for a more reasonable level,and that's why I pointed that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and I wanted to ask you,did the number of users on your system at any one time depreciate your signal strength,your ability? MR.MULLIN: Yes,it does. On our UMTS system,the more people we have on any individual cell,it actually shrinks the coverage of that cell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the--why don't you put the other map back on. MR.MULLIN: And these are representing LTE,which is our new technology which does not shrink. The coverage doesn't shrink with more users. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no,I understand a reference to LTE 3 and LTE 4. Is that what you're talking about,4 is the new standard,3 is what some of them are switching over to? MR.MULLIN: LTE,the fourth generation is what we're looking to build. We will have a collocated third generation site there too. We will have both technologies,fourth generation and third Page 19 of 66 July 16, 2015 generation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this represents a coloration performance standard based on LTE 4 with unlimited numbers of subscribers. MR.MULLIN: I wouldn't say unlimited,because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it wasn't affected by it. MR.MULLIN: It's not--the coverage area is not affected by the number of subscribers. Okay,what happens is as we get more subscribers on a fourth generation site,the speed which you're buffering your video you're looking at,we have to--your speed decreases in fourth generation,okay,gets down to very low speeds. Third generation cells shrink with more users,fourth generation speed is what is affected most,and the ability to access the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the third generation you have more ability to be--have blackouts, black areas where you don't have service because of the quantity. But in fourth generation you won't get the blackouts,you'll just get slower performance. MR.MULLIN: Slower performance,and somebody anywhere within the system could not be able to make a call. You could be right under the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a fourth generation? MR.MULLIN: A fourth generation. And he might not be able to attach or make any call at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's like a blackout or black--or dead spot,right? MR.MULLIN: Yeah,but it's not based on a location. The third-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on use. MR.MULLIN: It's based on usage,yes. So as we fill up,we just--we can't accommodate the new user. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this highlighted area,this colored area on this map,it was based on what tower height? MR.MULLIN: 145 feet for the antenna. MS. WESTINE: And I want to clarify that.The centerline of the antenna,the antenna centerline is at 145,which means the top of the antenna is at 150. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show me a map that shows 75 feet? MR.MULLIN: This was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since that's what you're asking to increase from is 75 to 150,I'd like to see how the performance changes between 75 and 150. So do you have one of these maps done at 75? MS. WESTINE: We did not do one at 75. We did take a look at this last night,although I don't have a map for it. We did take a look at it at 92 feet. And the reason we used 92 feet is that would be the height of the tower that we could meet the residential separation to. Can you tell them what you found at 92 feet on site? MR.MULLIN: At 92 feet our population percentage that we're going to cover,good indoor performance,drops from the 93 percent we have here down to around 80;78 to 82 percent, somewhere in that area. MS. WESTINE: Let me follow up on that.Does that in turn mean that additional sites will be needed to fill your engineering needs in this area? MR.MULLIN: Yes,we'd probably have to request a site to the north and we'd probably have to request a site to the east to try and meet our goals of giving fair coverage to 90 percent of the homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you have a survey showing us what other sites there would be available where you could have asked to put a tower in that vicinity within the distance you would need if you didn't get this tower at 150 feet? MR. MULLIN: There is one tower in the area that I am aware of MS. WESTINE: Let me answer. The answer is generally--the answer is no,we don't have--we didn't go out to do site-acc to show that. So just so that that's--but candidly,your code actually directs us to build one tower that can be shared user versus trying to build shorter multiple towers throughout. But to answer your question,no. Page 20 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,our code says that if you want to put a tower in this location with the zoning that that particular site has,you could do so by right up to 75 feet. You're doubling that height. So I'm just wondering,how do we--where else could you have put a tower or if you had multiple 75-foot towers it would have been more acceptable than a larger tower. MS.WESTINE: One of the things we did take a look at,and I will go to the next slide,is we did look at the Sprint tower,because there's a Sprint tower at Poinciana Elementary School that is 75 feet that is located.58, .6 miles to the south. I'm going to ask Dan,directing your attention to RF-9,you'll see there's a red blob that says Sprint Candidate. Sorry,I couldn't read my own type. Sprint Candidate. Did you have an opportunity to look at collocating on this site? MR.MULLIN: We looked at it and it was very unfavorable. It only increased our percentage population from what,63 percent,I believe. I can't read it from here. MS.WESTINE: 68. MR.MULLIN: 68 percent? MS.WESTINE: Uh-hum. That's what it--it says the Sprint Candidate would only serve 68 percent. MR. MULLIN: So we would still need additional towers. MS.WESTINE: Okay. And again,you would need an additional tower,as you just testified,to the north and then you said also to the east? MR.MULLIN: Yes,to the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Fred,just for-- MR.MULLIN: And there is finances involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is what involved? MR.MULLIN: Financial considerations involved of building one tower as opposed to building three towers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it's not a particular zoning issue,but I understand. I imagine there would be. Fred,confirmation on where in the--normally on this site would a tower be allowed and if so,what would be the allowed height by right? Is there a situation like that? MR.REISCHL: It's a commercial--Fred Reischl with Zoning Division. It's a commercial PUD so it would be allowed maximum 75 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. MS.WESTINE: Can I jump to the next slide or do you have any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've got lots of questions. This is interesting,by the way. So I think you'll find we'll have a lot of questions as we go through this. It may take a lot longer than I expected. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just have you repeat the answer to the question that Mr. Strain posed that was did you look at other heights. And I think you said you looked at what the coverage would be at 92 feet? MS.WESTINE: Right. In this particular case we have to be 2.5 times the tower height from the residential to the south,which is 91.8 feet when you do the math. So we would meet that 2.5 standard,the 2.5 times tower height standard at 92 feet. One of the reasons that I asked him to look at that,frankly as I was driving down here last night,was because in case this question came up as to why can't you and what's the difference,and to be able to very clearly say,you know,at one--at centerline of 145 you can cover this area with one tower,but with a centerline at--for a 92-foot tower you'd go five feet down. But for the shorter tower you would need in essence three towers to cover the same area. And I wanted him-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: At 92 feet,not 75 feet. MS.WESTINE: Right. The Sprint tower is actually further south. Here's another map.And I'm going to--it's RF-10. The Sprint tower is actually further south and shorter.The Sprint tower is only 75 feet, which means that AT&T couldn't have 75 feet,they'd have to go well below that. So at,say,65 feet,which is probably available,you get much less coverage at 65 feet at the Sprint tower,and then you're again opening up a gap up here to the north where you need a tower to correct this. Page 21 of 66 July 16, 2015 MR.MULLIN: And we're also going to need multiple levels on a tower. We have multiple technologies,so we have a third generation and fourth generation,so we would have--we would take a,you know, 10 foot below our proposed--let's say we were doing 145,we're also going to have antennas at 135 for the other technology, and we're still going to need to--and we're still going to want to have the ability for collocation. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But again,let me just clarify my question. Going back to the prior exhibits,at the 92 feet,what was the coverage? MS. WESTINE: We don't have a map for the 92 feet. I'll let him testify to it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right,that's what I was asking. MR.MULLIN: It was approximately 80 percent of the indoor pops getting fair to good coverage. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And what was the percentage that you're shooting for? MR.MULLIN: We're shooting for--90 would be good. This tower that we're asking for is at 93 percent. Our customers want to have their indoor coverage. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the difference is between the 92 and--I'm just trying to make sure I'm following you. The difference between a 92-foot tower and a 150-foot tower is somewhere between 82 percent and 90 percent. MR.MULLIN: Between 80 percent and 93 percent. MS.WESTINE: And so I can clarify,that's fair indoor coverage. That's not knocking it out of the park coverage,that's fair indoor coverage. I keep bringing that back to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fair assumption? Because you just testified earlier that the brown triangles and the--for the PHO,whatever that device is,that booster that you've had to utilize for those people,was never determined to be as a need for the signal strength or a need because of the construction of the home. So how do you know to get the indoor coverage that the construction of the home still isn't going to be a problem for you? MS.WESTINE: Can I answer that? Whether it's the construction of the home or whether it's the tower,in this particular--whether it's the construction of the home or whether it's the lack of coverage from an actual tower with a set of antennas on it to some extent doesn't make a difference,because at the end of the day the customer still wants coverage within their home. That said,I'm not talking about homes that are built with iron,you know,iron sides where they're trying to prevent things from covering in. But AT&T should be able to cover a standardly built home. Whether it be a basic brick home,they should be able to cover it within--and I do want to go back though to this femtocell sale--and I'm going back to RF-6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me correct something you said. There is a need for this information, because it's what you're using to partially justify the need to double the tower height. So we do need to get to the bottom of that. MS.WESTINE: And I'm going to try,I hope. As an engineer with 20 something years with AT&T, when you look at RF-6,which is the map that has the femtocells on it,what message does that tell you? Are your customers being served? MR.MULLIN: No,we have poor coverage in the area because we have so many customers that require femtocells. Now,the construction of the home,you know,a typical block home here is going to decrease our signal. And that's why we try to engineer for a neg.75 or neg.85 indoors rather as opposed to our neg.95 which is what we have a lot of this area now. And a lot of that is because of the blocked construction of the home,okay. So we get a closer tower,we get a stronger signal,it's going to get into that house better than what we have in the area now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of features in construction of homes negatively affect signal strength? MR. MULLIN: Block homes,rebar used in there to strengthen them. A lot of things we do down here in Florida because of our hurricane needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does metal-- Page 22 of 66 July 16,2015 MR.MULLIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --reflect the signal? MR.MULLIN: Metal blocks and reflects the signal,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because a lot of the new homes especially,but even in the retrofitting homes that we're using radiant barriers a lot. We're using solar panalized(sic)windows.We're using--all the block homes have rebar,they have tie beams,so-- MR.MULLIN: Exactly. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: In light of what you had shared with us before that the optimal location for this tower would be on the other side of Airport Pulling,possibly in Grey Oaks,have you looked at siting the tower in other locations on the Wilson PUD? MR.MULLIN: That would be the tower people who did the site acquisition. They were the ones that did the search for the tower.You know,we just gave them the general specifications of where we want it and they came back. They should have done a thorough job. I'm going to let them answer that question. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll save that question then. Because I was understanding from the documents I read that that was the only location on the Wilson PUD that a tower could be cited. And I questioned that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brian. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: On this map,if we were--75 is the allowable height. If you needed to place others monopines,which I've seen in Pennsylvania over 20 years ago and they're not a horrible eyesore, this one an extra 75 feet,even with those pictures still kind of stands out of place. I wouldn't mind one in my yard because of my coverage with AT&T. Are these towers--the height of them,they would seem to attract, as the pines do in my area,eagle nests. Are you guys wildlife friendly with that? I mean,according to maintenance and all-- MR. MULLIN: Absolutely. We have--if we go out to a tower and we have to do a repair on the top of the tower and there's a bird there,we stop and back off and we get independent--Trileaf comes in and does a bird study and tells us we can't work there. Then we wait until after nesting season. So right now we're between nesting seasons,so right now is when we're getting a lot of our tower work done on our bird sites. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Good. So with esthetics and safety in mind,if we were just to say no, only on 75 feet,where else on this map would you need to put and where else would we be considering 75-foot monopines that you would need? MR.MULLIN: Well,first we'd probably--like I said,there's financial considerations.And we would really have to get the bean counters to look at it and they would probably come back and they wouldn't give me a cell site. MS. WESTINE: With that said,after we get past the bean counters,can you generally give them on the map,if you can help point generally where the deficiencies would be? MR.MULLIN: Generally we'd need one up there at Pine Ridge and Airport Pulling. Right now we have,especially during December we get killed with our drop calls and our access issues because of all the shopping that goes on in that big commercial area up there. So that would be one area. And then the second area would be out closer to the east,somewhere close to the interstate. I'm not very familiar with that area out there. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So you would say two more? MR.MULLIN: At least. I mean,I'd have to actually get the propagation and everything,but I would say it would require three sites instead of one. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Question. What does the prefix femto mean? MR.MULLIN: Femto is a Greek,very small--I'm not sure what exactly-- Page 23 of 66 July 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Like a trillionth or something? MR.MULLIN: Something very,very small,yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anything to indicate the--any similar problems occurring for Verizon, Sprint or any other carriers? I mean,I'm just wondering why they don't seem to have the issue that you are concerned about.Or if they do,do you have anything that shows they have that issue? Because I've had two or three different other carriers I've--unless you get out in the Estates or east of 951, I've never found a problem,and I'm just curious as why yours is unique,if it is. MS.WESTINE: I can tell you that from a business perspective from a--carriers generally do not enter into any kind of a lease agreement until they see a tower in the area.They don't buy,as I call it,a pig in a poke.So there are other carriers interested,there are other site acqui--he was talking about how sites go to other acquisition agents. There are other site acquisition agents that are following this site from other carriers. I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that isn't my question. My question is you're trying to show that there's a need. MS.WESTINE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do the others have a need? Because,I mean,everybody has a cell phone. Mine happens to be Verizon, I did have AT&T at one time,so nothing against AT&T,but I don't remember--I mean, I don't have dropped areas even with my Verizon almost anywhere. So why can they get coverage that you may not be able to get or apparently you're telling us you can't get? MR.MULLIN: I really can't compare us to another carrier. I don't have that expertise to do that. So I could speculate and I'd rather not speculate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering why they're not coming in with the same need. We rarely have had this--in fact,I can't remember in the 14 years I've been on this commission we've had a similar request,so I'm just curious why nobody else has come up with a need,so-- MR.MULLIN: Sprint's in the area,so we know they had a need. MS.WESTINE: I can only tell you that I do have acquisition agents who are following the site who have emailed me who are wanting to know when and if we get approval kind of a thing. One of the things that I will point out,and I put on my lawyer hat very rarely when I come to hearings,but one of the things that you can't make your decision based on is that you can't make your decision based on well,just because T Mobile has coverage in the area or Verizon has coverage in the area we won't give AT&T the opportunity to serve their customers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't insinuating that was the reason. MS. WESTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was trying to find out is if they've done something that gives them coverage where they don't need to do what you're asking to do,why haven't you done that? MS. WESTINE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the reason.Because again,it goes back to demonstrating need. They haven't demonstrated the need to be here,and I'm wondering why versus your firm. It has nothing to do with preference over one firm or the other, it's a comparison. MR.MULLIN: A lot of it has to do with the--I can say that the amount of band width that each carrier has is different. Okay,so the FCC,we buy frequencies from them,so we have so many frequencies. And just because we buy from them doesn't mean they have anymore available. They have auctions. They had an auction last year. So we buy the frequencies when we can. We buy the band width. And each carrier is going to have a different band width in a different market. The more band width you have,the less amount of sites you would need,okay. So it's a juggling act there,do you pay a billion for 10 megahertz or do you--or a billion for,you know,another 10 megahertz,or do you get by with the five megahertz you're on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One other question.With regard to the map that's up there now,and I want to make sure that I understand what you use this map for. This--you're looking at these femtocells as Page 24 of 66 July 16, 2015 an indication of where you need to put another tower. MR.MULLIN: It's one indication. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One indication,okay.That's one of the indicators. So if you were to locate the 150-foot tower where you're requesting it to be located,how would this picture change? MR.MULLIN: Well,the customers bought their femtocells,so that would be up to them whether they would turn them off and use the new system or if they would continue using their femtocell. So we as a company can't tell them what to do with the equipment that we sold them. So they may keep them there,they may turn them off and use the new tower. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the difference between their service using a femtocell and their service if you located the 150-foot tower would be what? What's the difference for them as a consumer using their cell phone? MR.MULLIN: If you use the outside tower,we offer a broader spectrum. We offer a wider band width,like I was just talking about. So by using the tower you're using our 10 megahertz of 700-- 10 megahertz at 700 megahertz. We have another 10 megahertz at 1,900 megahertz. And I'm saying that because we have 10 megahertz of band width and the spectrum,so we've got spectrums this wide so we've got a little chunk here at 700 megahertz,which I believe is old UHF frequency range.We've got some in the 800 megahertz range. We've got another little 10 megahertz slice,which used to be in public safety,but that's actually the original A and B--A block that was given out in--for this area,probably 1988, '89,'90 that we got from the SCC to build. And then we purchased 1,900(sic)megahertz,so we have another little slice--at 19 megahertz we have 10 megahertz of spectrum. And we just bought some more spectrum at 23 megahertz. So we have a little bit and it's spread all over the place. MS.WESTINE: Can I jump in and try to clarify? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay,but I guess my question is,what's the difference in the service to the consumer living in this area if they're using a femtocell as opposed to what you're proposing to put in? What's the difference in-- MR.MULLIN: The femtocell uses the 10 megahertz of 1,900 spectrum. So they can get 10 megahertz. And if they're doing downloads,if they're watching a video off of YouTube,they can watch it and it's probably not that bad. But if they go out to our outside system where we have 30 or 40 megahertz spread over a wider area, they can use--they can get faster download speeds. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So they will have better service with the tower if they're not using the femtocell. MR.MULLIN: Yes. If they turn their femtocell off they should get better service from the tower, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That was my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have two follow-up questions to that. You talked about increasing band width as a relief to bad service or poor service. So if you didn't buy--if you didn't build this tower you would simply have to increase the band width on some other towers in the area;is that a conclusion? MR. MULLIN: No,because right now we're using all the band width we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,you could buy more. MR.MULLIN: In theory. You have to find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULLIN: The FCC doesn't auction it off every year. They had an auction last year and we got some of it then,and we paid$18 billion for a national license. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULLIN: But they don't--the FCC doesn't have--doesn't auction it off every year. And then once we get this new frequency range,this 23 megahertz,which has never been used in Page 25 of 66 July 16, 2015 cellular before;nobody's phone that has one right now can even use that new stuff,okay. So we have to get with the people who make the phones and have them make phones including this new band width up at 23 megahertz,and then that stuff would start getting out to the public slowly. So that new spectrum that we bought isn't even--can't be deployed because nobody has a phone that can use that new spectrum yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said something else,that the people who buy these femtocells,because they purchased them,they'll probably just leave them in their house or they could leave them in their house;there would be no negative for doing that,they just do it. Then how do we know those brown triangles aren't left over from improvements you already made to the system? MR.MULLIN: Because we haven't done much to this system in this area in years. MS.WESTINE: Let me ask you a question:How long have you been looking for a site in this area? MR.MULLIN: We've been looking for a site in this area since I was with Cellular One of Southwest Florida since the late Nineties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that we're going to take a 15-minute break so the court reporters can rest their very tired fingers by now. And we'll come back at 10:45. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody,welcome back from break. We'll resume where we left off. We were into a very interesting topic on femtocells. Did I say that right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Femto. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Femtocells. Go ahead,Lauralee. MS.WESTINE: Are we back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am. MS. WESTINE: Lauralee Westine,back from break. I have been sworn. I have with me Dan Mullin. M-U-L-L-I-N,for the court reporters. I'm going to move to an exhibit that I've put up on the screen,if I can pull it back a little bit. Am I making it better? Yay,okay. It's RF--it's marked for exhibit as RF-11. And I'm going to ask Dan,what is this? What does this document reflect? MR.MULLIN: I'm Dan Mullin,I have been sworn. This document reflects the surrounding sites and the amount of used capacity that these surrounding sites are undergoing at this time. We can see the green levels are below and-- MS.WESTINE: The green is 0 to 70? MR.MULLIN: The green is 0 to 70 percent.The yellows is 80 to--is 70 to 80 percent.And the red is where our capacity is above 80 percent used already. So we've got these five sites that surround this area. The upper left hand is on Shirley Street north of Pine Ridge. The one to the northeast is right behind Burger King or Waffle House there off Pine Ridge near 75. Then you've got the one to the lower left,to the southwest is the IberiaBank. And then we've got two sites below that: One is our commercial cell site which is on Commercial and our Briarwood cell site which is right off of Airport. MS.WESTINE: Let me ask you a question,I'm going to be specific. There are--each of these has three triangles or three directions in which the antennas are pointing. What does the red mean? MR.MULLIN: The red means that we're very capacity challenged there. We're already using over 80 percent of our capacity. MS.WESTINE: Okay. So--and I'm going to point these out. So on FCL04543,which is up on the top left corner,I see that there is one red triangle and that is pointing in the direction of the area in which we're proposing the new site;is that correct? MR.MULLIN: That's somewhat correct. If you can see,the triangle at that site is divided into two sections. So we're using two different frequencies there. We're using our 700 and our 1,900 frequency there on our LTE spectrum. Page 26 of 66 July 16, 2015 MS.WESTINE: And so but for both they are within what we're calling red,which is the 80 percent to-- MR.MULLIN: Yeah,both of the frequencies are at max capacity right now. MS.WESTINE: And then I'm going to go down to this one on the far left-hand side,4537,and there are actually two red triangles in that. Is that one also at maximum capacity? MR.MULLIN: Yes,it is. MS.WESTINE: And moving to 4508,the two--one of the triangles pointing north also is red. Does that reflect maximum capacity? MR.MULLIN: That's correct. MS.WESTINE: And then I'm going to--I think that's 4540. I see half red,half yellow. Help me understand what that means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,if he's your expert,can he just tell us what those mean rather than you kind of coaching him along? MS. WESTINE: He can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we just start and explain to us what the triangles mean, and if there's any substance to the angle in which those triangles are towards the property or against the property. MR.MULLIN: Okay,let's start up at the northeast. That's Shirley Street,north of Pine Ridge. That you can see there's--it looks like three triangles,but each one's subdivided. And they represent an antenna; I'll simplify it as an antenna. That's where our antennas point. So the green sector facing north is--has capacity to spare. But the red antennas,and there's two of them,there's two different frequency ranges,are pointing towards the area in question. So this was June,this wasn't even looking at something from December when actually it gets worse. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you say antennas,are these--I'm used to--I heard the term parabolic. Are they that kind of antenna? Or what kind of antenna are they? MR.MILLER: It's not a parabolic,it's usually a panel antenna underneath the panel.Like there may be one and they'll call it a ray dome that covers it,whether it's a parabolic or a panel type of antenna like we have here. A parabolic really focuses the signal to a very fine point as much as possible;whereas a ray dome sort of tries to instead of,you know,pointing out at a five degree angle where you've got this real narrow slice,the panel antennas we can get it out so they go like at a 65-degree beam width we call it. So from--it's pointing at 120 degrees. So let's just say 35 degrees to the clockwise and another 35 degrees counterclockwise is where the primary coverage area is for that antenna. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when we see these arrays of antennas at different levels on the tower, they're purposely positioned so that they more or less broadcast in a direction.They're not all directional, they're just very focused. MR.MULLIN: Yeah,it's directional,but it's not very fine directional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on let's say the tower site on the upper left-hand corner where you have two green and one red,are you getting any feedback to the south from the green going north? MR.MULLIN: No,you can't use a--the LTE technology--or actually the antennas themselves point it in that specific direction at that angle that you see there. It's like a pie shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.MULLIN: That's the direction that the antenna faces. That green one to the top cannot help you to the south. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: .I have a question.Could you add another antenna to that tower? MR.MULLIN: That is a possibility,but we would have to come up with a new frequency range to--I mean,you can put up all the antennas you want,but that isn't going to give you more band width,okay. So we've only got the two slices of band width for our LTE technology right now. That's why that triangle is divided into sections there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could you reorient the antenna? Page 27 of 66 July 16, 2015 MR.MULLIN: And take coverage away from another direction? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,it looks like you've got excess capacity from what you're showing. MR.MULLIN: It's excess capacity because there's not a lot of customers up there. And it's up to 70 percent,so that may be utilized at 60 percent. So if we pointed that south,first of all,we're using the same frequency,so we would just interfere with ourself,okay.Our antenna would interfere with the sector that's already pointing in that direction. So you would take away coverage from the north and you would degrade the signal to the south,add interference to it and make it unusable by changing that azimuth. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,that's if the engineering wasn't done to a high degree to optimize it. MR.MULLIN: You can only optimize it so much. We would need more frequencies. We would have to go to the FCC and try and buy more. And right now there's none available. We tried to do that when we tried to purchase T Mobile. I don't know if you remember hearing that the FCC turned down AT&T buying T Mobile. Well,we wanted their frequencies is what we wanted the most. We wanted their customers,yeah,but we wanted their frequencies so we could do something like that. We could have four antennas pointing in that direction. But we can't,we can only have two. If we put anymore on there we don't have the frequency to add to it. There's just--we just don't have it. It's just a limited little slices of band width that we have. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And so when you add another tower--are these all towers,by the way,on this graphic? MR.MULLIN: Most of them are. I believe four out of the five are. The ones on the IberiaBank,it's named Parkway because it was put there when it was the Parkway Bank. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: How about the ones in Grey Oaks? MR.MULLIN: There's--those red arrows are just pointing the direction that the tower's covering, okay, so there's not actually a tower in Grey Oaks. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because I'm confused by this. Because the ones that you were speaking about are towers but then some aren't towers,so-- MR.MULLIN: It's a building top. It can still be considered a tower. But I'm an engineer and I get real picky. It's a building top. MS.WESTINE: We would just refer to it generally as a site,whether the antennas are supported by a tower or whether the antennas are supported by a building. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. So there's an--this is an antenna chart. MS.WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. MR.MULLIN: Yes,this is where our-- MS.WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. MR.MULLIN: --antennas are. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That was unclear. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does power have anything to do with this? Is it just a matter like Tim Allen says,more power? MR.MULLIN: More power would be nice.But there is limitations. The FCC limits the amount of power that we can put out on different spectrums,okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. The government. It's okay,we understand. MR.MULLIN: So these towers,we've got them optimized for the power level that works.Okay,if you put more power on them,it will work better here,but then further down you're causing interference. So it's a balancing act. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: If this petition was approved for the current proposed tower that you're asking for,would you do away with any of the building antennas that are already in existence? MR. MULLIN: No,we would not do away with any of that. That would keep our capacity in the area. We might lower the power to allow the new cell site to take over the area better. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. Page 28 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Lauralee? MS.WESTINE: Let me get my ducks back in a row here. I have kind of just three summing up questions for Dan. Is that okay for me to ask him that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am. MS.WESTINE: Okay,we have talked a lot about--well,we've talked a lot about everything. But one of the things that we have to justify is the height. So I believe your testimony in the past has been that the minimum height necessary in order to fill this need with one tower versus three is your centerline of 145, which is a tower top of 150;is that an accurate statement? MR.MULLIN: That's accurate,yes. MS. WESTINE: Okay,we had-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know those three questions,if you could make them more questions than leading,I would appreciate it. MS.WESTINE: Will do. We talked about that the FCC regulates certain things. Does AT&T operate well within the reg--well within the federal regulations? MR.MULLIN: Absolutely. We follow all federal,state,local laws,regulations. We have a lot at stake here. Like I said,we just spent$18 billion on some new spectrum. If we violate rules,the FCC can take our spectrum away,and that's the worst thing that could happen to us. So we strictly follow their rules to the letter. And we actually,a lot of times we don't stretch it to what they might allow us. We want to be within the laws,we don't want to be at that boundary. MS.WESTINE: With that said,one of the--let me have this. I'm putting on the screen an exhibit not--I call it 9-1-1,which is a letter from the Sheriff Kevin Rambosk,showing that within Collier County 79.3 percent of 9-1-1 calls are coming from wireless phones.As this area stands now,we talk about capacity and we talked about we saw the antennas and those reds. Is there always--help me understand whether or not--can a 9-1-1 call at this point go through no matter what,no matter when,no matter how? MR.MULLIN: No. MS.WESTINE: Can you explain to them why. MR.MULLIN: Well,first of all,if we don't have the coverage,if our antenna cannot see the request coming in because we have limited coverage in the area,then that call can't be completed because we don't even know it's being tried to be completed. So that's the first thing. If you don't have coverage,your 9-1-1 calls could fail and nobody's going to know about it. MS.WESTINE: Okay. I'm looking through my notes to see if I have anything else. But I don't think I have anything for Dan. Does anyone else have any questions for him before I sum up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so at this point. You have other professionals that will be coming up;is that correct? MS.WESTINE: No,unless you all had questions for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have questions on a lot of documents that were submitted,including structural points involving the tower and stuff like that. I'm not sure if Dan's the right person to ask. MS. WESTINE: He's not. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I was told that he wasn't the right person to answer my questions. I need the tower guy,so-- MS.WESTINE: The Sabre representative is here and I can also try to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're good with Dan. Thank you for your time. MS.WESTINE: One of the questions--and I'll try to answer the Sabre question. One of the questions was is this talking about break point technology and when did monopoles come in. I believe, ma'am,that was your question. Monopoles--I've been in this industry since 1999 and monopoles have been around since then. We went towards monopoles away from,say,guyed towers or the big lattice towers when we started putting Page 29 of 66 July 16, 2015 towers in the more residential or the more city urban areas versus the rural areas. And the break--the engineering off it,and I'm not an engineer,so I may need to have somebody come up and actually give you a little more information,but the engineering ability has always been there. But as we have built these closer to more populated areas,what you've seen is engineers design these towers the same way they design the light poles up and down 75. As you recall,during storms those light poles bend over? I call them bendy straws,but they bend over like the bendy straws. That top part doesn't actually break off. It's still there,it's still hinged,but it does,it's built with kind of a collapsed point or a weaker point in there so your base of your tower is stronger and then you've got that piece up top. That is the--as this industry has progressed,you've seen that be built into more towers. Where in the past you didn't see it,where in the past it was just the tower was built to what the Building Code specs were and you were done. As we've gotten closer to residential areas,you've seen for example a lot of telecommunication codes actually have in there a certain setback percentage or the fall zone of the tower. I hope--I don't know if I answered that.I tried. Commissioner Roman,what was your question? My apologies. I wrote lots of them,but-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: My question had to do with the staff report and the documents that we were provided. There was indication that this--the siting of the tower,that location was the only location that was suitable on that site. And I question that. MS. WESTINE: The answer to that is that is the only location that the property owners would allow my client to site the tower. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that's different than a technical siting. MS.WESTINE: I'm not disagreeing with you,but that's the candid answer is that's where we were allowed to site it. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question is of Sabre. MS. WESTINE: Sabre is the tower manufacturer. SBA is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with them.Yeah,I have--the Sabre representative is Robert Beacom. Is he here? MS.WESTINE: No,Mike Checchio is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And who is Mike Checchio? Some lights just went on. MS.WESTINE: Mike Checchio is--he's a general contractor who is also one of the directors over at Sabre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can he speak for Mr.Beacom's letter that was written to Collier County on April 9th,2015-- MS.WESTINE: He is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --provided to Collier County. It says: Dear Mauricio Aguido(phonetic)-- MS.WESTINE: I'm going to have--I'll do this: I have a PE who can speak generally to these types of things. I'll ask him to step up. As well as I'll ask Mike to step up. And we'll see between the two of them-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start there. You know what letter I'm talking about? MS. WESTINE: I do. I have it right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,because you'll need to put that on the overhead when you get-- MS.WESTINE: I will. If I could ask both you gentlemen--if I could ask Yan and Mike to come up and let me--if you don't mind,sir,can I ask them to put their credentials on the record prior to answering questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MS. WESTINE: Can I ask you to state your name,your address,whether you've been sworn and your experience,your educational background. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to use the mic there,Lauralee,for yourself too.Anything-- MR. WANG: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you're saying needs to be on record as well. MR. WANG: My name is Yan Wang. I'm a Florida registered PE,and I have my education in Page 30 of 66 July 16, 2015 structural. I got a master degree in structural engineering and my master degree in civil engineering. And I have 14 years in the telecom industry. I work for Morrison Hershfield right now as a senior structural engineer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.CHECCHIO: Hi,I'm Mike Checchio. I live at 1236 Royal Oak Drive,Winter Springs,Florida. I am the licensed general contractor for Sabre and also the director of international sales for Sabre for 30 years now. I can speak a little bit on behalf of the structural report that you're referring to,but we could probably answer most of the questions on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,my question starts out as what was the purpose of this letter? What was the intention that it was submitted for? To certify the break points,to certify the towers,to provide general information? What was your intention? MS.WESTINE: I can answer that. One of the things that in many of the jurisdictions that they wish to see is that in the event of a catastrophic failure that the tower itself will fall--well,not fall,but the tower will fail or have a failure point on the property,on the parent track versus on a neighboring property. So the point of this was to show the 32 feet is the minimum setback that we have to the property to the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it was signed and sealed by Mr.Beacom,who's an engineer. So is that considered his certification as to the statements made in this letter? MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. I don't know--yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then let's start with the first paragraph,second line. A basic wind speed of 126 miles per hour with no ice. Structure Class II exposure category C. If I'm not mistaken,he's going for an exception of the Florida Building Code 1609.1,I believe, exception four or five,which refers to another document called TIAA-222. Is any one of you at the podium familiar with that document? A standard? MR.WANG: Yes. This is the main design code for telecommunication towers. And this based on current codes,based on the 2009 IBC.And the code refers to two different kind of wind loads. The 126 is based on the,they call it a fastest wind load. And the current 2010 Florida Building Code is based on the ultimate three-second gust wind. So they are different definitions for the wind. But they are convertible between each other. So the 163 on the Florida Building Code map converted to the fastest wind load is going to be 126. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I-- MR. WANG: But the TIA code is the telecommunication tower design code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Which of the--why did you choose exposure category C,and what is the difference between the design criteria for exposure category C versus exposure category B. MR.WANG: The category C is based on the location of the tower,based on the obstructions surrounding the tower. There's a strict definition of exposures in the International Building Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the difference--here's the problem. MR. WANG: For example,in the surrounding suburban area,all the low--the high buildings around the tower,that usually is a B. If open grass area,open areas,that's called a C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,you said exactly what I'm trying to indicate. This was using exposure C,but I think it should have been exposure B. And I'm wondering if there's any differences in the criteria between those two exposures that would impact the way this letter was written. MR. WANG: The C is more severe than exposure B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because of flat,open terrain? MR. WANG: Yes. And the wind load can be higher than a B zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you design to gust,what category hurricane are you designing to? MR. WANG: Well,the hurricane has a different wind definition than this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,your wind loads-- MR.WANG: A hurricane is sustained wind.This is three second gust wind. Page 31 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But a--if you get into a hurricane wind category at the location you're at, we're looking at a--I pulled the wind tables from our public site. Category 3 to 4 is 176 miles per hour. Category 2 is 163.And you've designed it at 126 with a 25 percent safety factor. So 125 percent of 126 is 157.5. So your design,your wind load category for this was--for gust was 157.5? Because I thought I read somewhere it was 163. MR.WANG: Well,you can't really--the 163 is based on the category of this structure. We consider it's not critical,not essential.Like if that's the communication center or it's for wind during a hurricane season,this is for a communication facility,then is Category 3 or 4. But this is Category 2,considered just a regular structure. So the wind load is 163 based on the Florida Building Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WANG: But if you say a category goes up three or four,that has to stay in place during the hurricane strikes,has to be the community center. Because not all towers are classified as a critical structure, okay. But this is not--if it's critical structure,304,that wind load speed going to go up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So because this is a noncritical structure,it's made to collapse at a Category 2 wind gust speed,is that-- MR.WINTERS: No,it's just the code required wind load is different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WANG: It doesn't mean this tower collapse. There is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what speed-- MR.WANG: --standard different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what wind speed would it collapse? Would the sections unhinge? MR. WANG: We don't define this when this collapse. Because this tower usually when the design according to this code wind,it doesn't collapse. Is not supposed to collapse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the second paragraph the second sentence of this letter says--but first of all it talks in the first paragraph about the design of the overall minimum safety factor. Then it says: 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. Why would the words "highly unlikely"be the phraseology they used instead of either it is designed or isn't designed? I mean,that is not--that's a very ambiguous statement. And it doesn't really give us anything,it just says it's highly unlikely. So if something happens,it could be,well,it was highly unlikely, but it happened. I'm not feeling comfortable with that in regards to your fall radius that this letter I think was intended to assure us of. MR.WANG: Well,I try to--I didn't prepare the letter myself,but I try to understand his intent to state this way is if this tower is designed according to the code required wind load,in this case is 163 miles per hour,this tower should not fail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should not fail. MR. WANG: Should not fail. Even though you are slightly higher than the speed according to this statement here,they have this capacity designed 25 percent over. So which means even though the wind speed is higher than 165 miles per hour,this tower should not fail within that capacity,over capacity he consider when he designed the tower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the third paragraph,second sentence says: Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used. I mean,again,another qualifying statement to his certification of the collapsing area. Then the following sentence says: This is likely to result. I mean,there's no definitiveness to this. It seems ambiguous.And maybe that was intentional. But if someone's going to certify something to meet a collapsing need,it would be very definitive.This seems less than definitive. And that was a concern when I was reading it. MR. WANG: I think the--my understanding of the overall,the letter is written in the format that he Page 32 of 66 July 16, 2015 based on this tower behave under all the code required wind load,the code required wind profile. Everything--if everything goes along with the code requirement,this tower should not fail,should not collapse,that in the matter that the out-way(phonetic)states here. But I think that there are many factors involved in the reality that sometimes the wind doesn't really perform what he ask him to do,and also the tower may not be properly maintained. And maybe the material has deficiency. There's so many unknowns that is other than what the code requirement. The code cannot cover every single scenarios. When the design tower--when the tower was designed,it was assume material,construction,everything in perfect condition. But it's not necessarily in realty. So his letter is kind of,my understand,try to cover the whole thing,but it's also avoid of liability, because those unknowns. But if this tower designed to code strictly,it shouldn't fail. So that's the bottom line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last line,maybe you could explain what he's trying to tell us there: In the unlikely event of total separation,this would result in the portion above collapsing within a radius of 32 feet. So if it has total separation,how does it collapse within the radius of 32 feet? MR. WANG: I don't think--first of all,the total saturation(sic)is really extremely rare case, because the tower is made of steel. Still is a flexible material. It got softened,it got buckled. It really doesn't separate very often. Unless this material has deficiencies like the break,like a concrete.Usually it don't separate. Like they bend probably and they fall between close like the body,like the bendy--the steel. But usually it don't separate. But assuming they're separated and based on this tower was designed on this engineer,the first part that's going to fail is the close to the upper portion of the tower. And the tower fails where is the weakest point along the shaft,where have the most severe combined stress. When it reach 100 percent,whichever point reach the 100 percent,that point going to fail which is called the weakest point. The front of--this tower was designed that the weakest point is the upper portion.If it does fail if it does separate,which is very rare,it's going to be the upper portion going to fail and separate from the tower,from the main tower,and the portion that it can separate can be less than 32 feet. It going to fall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have the tower starts to break at whatever predetermined break time there is,and I guess the first break point on the top would be less than 32 feet. MS. WESTINE: Within the 32 feet,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it starts to break and it falls. It's not going to fall in a direction that 140 or 163 mile an hour gust of wind is pushing it,it's going to fall straight down within that 32-foot circumference of a circle. MR.WANG: --going to bend first-- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me,may I have your answer again? MR. WANG: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was,if this were to separate and it does fall,it's separated,it's in 163 mile an hour worst case scenario gust of wind. That wind's not going to influence it's falling straight down and hitting a pattern that's within the radius of the break point of 32 feet,it's all going to fall right there. Is that what you're saying? MR.WANG: I think it's--based on my experience,the tower usually fell,it's a controlled manner. It's not all over the place,it's a controlled manner,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And based on your experience,how many towers have you physically inspected-- MR. WANG: I have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that have had-- MR.WANG: --ever fail in my-- THE COURT REPORTER: Hold on,one at a time,please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your experience,how many towers have you visited that have fallen within after a high sustained wind or a high wind gusting of 163 miles an hour,how many of them have fallen within the radius points that you're now indicating this one will? Page 33 of 66 July 16, 2015 MR.WANG: First of all,the tower fail is very rare. And I haven't seen a tower myself.But I haven't seen those reports and photos the failed towers. The guyed tower,self-support towers or the monopoles,I haven't seen those reports. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have not seen them? MR. WANG: Not by my own eyes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so you don't have any experience in regards to the fall radius of a tower physically after it has fallen? MR.WANG: I haven't seen myself. MS.WESTINE: And I think your question was have you seen towers that have fallen,and he's saying he hasn't seen any that have falling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,he just testified that based on his experience in them falling,and I wanted to understand what that experience was. That's all I was trying to find out. MR.WANG: Well,I haven't seen a tower that failed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.WESTINE: I would also ask Mr.Checchio to address that matter as well. State your name? MR. CHECCHIO: Mike Checchio,and I have been sworn. I can answer your question. When we're referring to the towers,let's be clear on what we're speaking about. We have a guyed tower,which is supported by guyed wires,which is a continuous shaft. Then you have a lattice tower,which is a self-supporting tower,which is generally three to four legs. Then you have a monopole,which we're referring to now. The guyed towers generally fall down in the area is because of the degree that's picked up during a hurricane;they clip the lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm only interested in the one we're talking-- MR.CHECCHIO: The monopole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --about today. Yeah. MR. CHECCHIO: Perfect. Okay,what happens with the monopole,I'll just give you a fact,we're talking about fallen over structures. I did some research,and over the past 10 years we average about 750 monopoles a year that we manufacture. Out of these 10 years,we've never had one fail. And these towers have been designed in hurricane zones such as Dominican Republic,Puerto Rico and here in Florida. So no failures at all over the past 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean by failure? MR. CHECCHIO: Collapse. Separation is not an issue. On the guyed towers,the towers may be clipped,the towers still may fall apart,but there is no separation in a monopole. They're a slip fit design so they don't break and like protrude,jettison out into the air. They will bend over. Although we don't know that for sure because we've never seen one fail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so now we don't have any evidence as how they fail. We have-- MR.CHECCHIO: We do have evidence in that we do wind testing. But we've never had one fail in the field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in real life situation you have not had a tower fail. MR.CHECCHIO: That is correct. A monopole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason that's relevant is because it has to--we were understanding that you've--there's sometimes evidence to show that it's going to fall within the radius that it's supposed to. And basically that evidence was part of that certification letter which seems a little ambiguous in the way it's written. Part of the knowledge that you two gentleman have but then you've just testified there has been no tower failure,so we don't really know if they're going to work exactly like you've envisioned them to because none have failed. MR. CHECCHIO: We have done wind tunnel testing to where we have seen failure,and they have never separated. Page 34 of 66 July 16,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have they collapsed within their 32 feet in all the-- MR.CHECCHIO: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --wind tunnel testing? MR.CHECCHIO: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The failure mode from the comments I'm hearing is that the top 32 feet of the pole collapses like a hinge and falls down against the pole? And then does it ever fall down to the ground and then fall,over or does it just stay against the pole? MR.CHECCHIO: It collapses kind of like a camber,like a banana would,a banana shape.But we've never seen separation. MS.WESTINE: Stays against the pole. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,so it just stays at an angle. Stays against the pole. MS.WESTINE: Stays against the pole. If you think of a bendy straw. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MS. WESTINE: It bends down. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So that's the kind of failure you're talking about you see in the wind tunnel. MR. CHECCHIO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nothing falls to the ground? MR. CHECCHIO: Nothing falls to the ground,and there's no separation. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,why do you have the 32 foot? The 32-foot radius as though--it makes me think that there's a piece that comes down and falls over 32 foot,but--okay. No,I understand what you're saying. MR.CHECCHIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple more questions about the SBA plan sets. Is that the right people up there to address those? MS.WESTINE: We'll try,how about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just some discrepancies. The compound that's listed on the site plan under A-1.1. MS.WESTINE: Wait a minute,let me get there. I'm sorry,sir. A-1.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7,I believe,of the 11 pages that were submitted. MS.WESTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look on the left-hand side of the page with the arrow pointing to the compound you all are proposing,it says proposed SBA fenced compound. That's going to be a CMU,not fenced,right? MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir,it's going to be a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just to let you know,and it's nothing that is necessarily that concerning,but your overall site data table. MS.WESTINE: On which? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on the right-hand side of that same page. MS. WESTINE: I see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your impervious calculations there do not correspond with the impervious calculations on Page 1. Just a note so you can take a look at that when needed. MS.WESTINE: Got it,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You show a--I guess a best--say the best thing is an elevation on page A-3. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. Page 35 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9. Where is your climbing mechanism for that pole? How do you get in and maintain the pole,how do you deal with it with the antennas? MS.WESTINE: I'll let Mr.Checchio respond. MR. CHECCHIO: There are step bolts that are built in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the outside around-- MR. CHECCHIO: On the outside,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you work them around the tree limbs? MR.CHECCHIO: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh. MR.CHECCHIO: The tree limbs are worked around the step bolts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. So someone climbing up somehow has a clear path to get through those tree limbs. MR.CHECCHIO: Per code you have to,that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's why I was wondering. There's a new-- MR.CHECCHIO: There's a safety calming--I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I just didn't see,I couldn't figure out how you--I didn't know if it was inside or how it was set up,so-- MR. CHECCHIO: No,they're outside step bolts that are spaced per code,and there's also a safety climbing device attached to it. So when the person climbs it they have a harness on and it attaches to it and they climb up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the following page,just a note,you have a fence notes in there. I know you're going to use fences for gating,but I just want to make sure that this is going to be a wall as the typical wall section shows,and you weren't looking at that as an option to put a fence in. MS.WESTINE: No,we were not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm looking at your other documents that hit any questions I have. If anybody else on the Planning Commission has any questions,feel free to jump in. Some of them were already answered by your presentation. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got some questions about--not necessarily about the technical issues and the engineering,but more about the hardship on the property owner. I mean,you're asking for a variance,and so I'd like to get into that,but only if we're done with the technical issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,I was just going to get into the staff report and the PUD and all that,which is right along the line you're heading to. So let's start with your question then. That's great. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well,the question is-- MS.WESTINE: May I let these gentleman sit down then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I won't need them anymore. I think we're done with that kind of questioning at this point. MS. WESTINE: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well,my question is,is that the applicant is speaking a variance.The Land Development Code,as I understand it,allows for a 75-foot pole or tower at this point. And so--and the staff report says that such 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. I mean,that's--that's an issue relating to the surrounding community and their phone service. I'm trying to understand what's the hardship to this property owner for what they're seeking,and why they should be entitled to it. Because as I understand it,there needs to be some hardship involved. MS.WESTINE: Sorry,let me--all right,is that for staff or is that for me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the staff ought to answer it officially and then you can jump in. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah,maybe-- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I think staff can since they are the--Ray's the official interpreter of the Page 36 of 66 July 16, 2015 code,so between the two of the staff members respond and we'll go from there. MR.REISCHL: Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. This is a PUD amendment,not a variance.However we did analyze it using the variance criteria. And the criterion you're referring to is C,literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. We looked at it from the practical difficulties standpoint and how the--our code which was written in the 1980's reflects current technology. We tried to mediate between those two standards: The new technology which allowed monopoles and the hardship or practical difficulties which the code asks you to address. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so am I correct in assuming that the way the Land Development Code was written where it required a two and a half times the height of the tower to residential properties,that that--that was a safety issue? MR.REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because of the collapse,obviously that's a safety issue. Is there--was there any other concerns--when it was limited to 75 feet,what was the thought process on that? Was it tied to the setback,the safety issue,or was that just a dimensional standard that the County Commission decided was appropriate? MR.REISCHL: Yeah,that was the mid-Eighties. I wasn't at the county at the time. But a PUD zoning district would allow a communication tower max 75 feet. So it is in the code. I don't know the genesis of it. MS. WESTINE: Can I try to help? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. MS.WESTINE: One of the things,and I've been doing this,I've been in this industry since 1999 and I work all over the State of Florida,a little bit up in Georgia. One of the things that we found when codes got written in the 1980's,when towers first came in in the Eighties,there were no codes.So what you had was somewhat cowboy-ism,everybody came up and tried to put up their own towers. What happened then,the reaction was,generally speaking, is jurisdictions came out and they wrote these codes that essentially prohibited towers. We can fight over,you know,how they did it,but the realty is is everybody panicked and everybody said we don't want towers. And they came up with separation distances such as this which really have no basis in any kind of safety or any kind of engineering,but they just kind of came up with distances that they felt well,that's going to be far enough,that will keep them out. That's what in all candor I think happened here. One of the things your Board of County Commissioners do,and I--part of my presentation is to look at what they actually talk about,the intent within the Tower Code,unfortunately this is a very much of a hybrid application. This is a,you know,I've got a PUD. If I were a euclidean zoning,I would be a conditional use and I'd have gone--well,I'd have gone before Commissioner Strain probably as the Hearing Examiner. So I think the only--my instinct is,and I wasn't around in the Eighties when this got written,but my instinct is,is that they left it in there,they gave everyone the opportunity to ask for variances. So for example,to take into consideration that someone is doing a camouflage tower instead of a traditional tower, they'd take into account that this tower's been designed with additional security or safety factors,to take into account what's around it. In this particular instance,I've got very dense vegetation to my south,I've got dense vegetation on the church property to the west.I am bound and determined to mess those two directions up. But I think what they did is when they--as they rewrote the code,I think the Board of County Commissioners saw that they did need to take into account some other factors as things have developed. But my gut reaction is to tell you that this was written way back when and it was just you threw out a number and you hoped for the best. And I don't think I answered,but I tried. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you. You have it at 150 feet. Page 37 of 66 July 16, 2015 MS. WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you're saying that you can share this tower. MS.WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Are--at a lower height could you still share or would you--would you still get the same coverage for AT&T,let's put it that way,without sharing? MS.WESTINE: I'm going to restate your question,because I want to make sure I understand it. The answer is,is AT&T's minimum height to meet their engineering need in this case is 145 centerline,which is the top of a tower of 150. So if you reduce the height of the tower any to AT&T you shrink what they're able to cover and you potentially open up the need for those two other towers that Dan had talked about earlier. The sharing part is separate. And you hit on a very good point. Right now we have the opportunity for three other carriers to come in and collocate on this tower. One of the problems you find as you reduce height in towers,just like AT&T can't go 65 feet on the Sprint tower at the school and meet their needs,you will find unfortunately that maybe other carriers when they come in,they may not then be able to use those lower heights. So if you were to shrink this tower down to,say, 125,you've not only impacted AT&T,but you've now impacted three other carriers who you may move them down that pole far enough where it's not worth them collocating on that tower. They then would then propose their own tower somewhere else. So there's a balance there. And that's actually something--one of the reasons your code has--granted,your code requires it after 185 feet,but your code,or most codes nowadays try to get you to balance. They do want folks to collocate. They do want one larger tower that impacts an area and they don't want three or four others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What height is AT&T going to utilize for their antennas on this tower? MS.WESTINE: They're the anchor tenant;they're at the top height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be at the top. MS.WESTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions they want to pursue at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few about the PUD document. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on page--well,5.6. We won't go by pages,because my electronic pages are probably different than yours. MS.WESTINE: All right. I'm winging it,so I got-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.6 is water management. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the PUD. It's all crossed out. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MS.WESTINE: I'm going to look at staff,because I think their rationale is is that it's already addressed elsewhere in the LDC,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,then Fred? And the reason I'm asking,and as I came to you yesterday and said we ought to touch on some of this before today,so I apologize we never got time. We didn't update the rest of this document. We seem to pick and choose what paragraphs we're updating. Why? I mean,either we do it all or we don't do any of it.And I'm just wondering,this is a limited use application for this project. Why are we messing with the rest of the PUD? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. I didn't do those two reviews,but those were reviews that came in to say strike those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who did that;do you know? MR. REISCHL: It's both--well,both the stormwater and environmental were removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,who's here representing them today? MR. REISCHL: Summer Araque and I don't see anybody from stormwater. Page 38 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The environmental is struck as well. And again,this is an addition of a use with some deviations for that use and changes to the PUD. And I'm wondering why we're getting into all these other things that could theoretically affect other parties who are not necessarily involved with this tower. Why are we even doing it? I'm just puzzled. So maybe Summer,if you don't mind addressing that issue. MR.REISCHL: And my answer--and I got a call on that from someone who saw it on the sign. And the same or stricter standards are now incorporated into the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we never know and we're just learning that every time we change a word or more in any document it seems to have ramifications we didn't expect. And so if it's--I'm always like leave well enough alone. And if we can,if we want to open this whole thing up to changes,great, then we'll start all over,because there's a lot of things that could be changed to bring it more in line with what we're doing today. Summer? MS.ARAQUE: Hi. Summer Araque,Principal Environmental Specialist,Environmental Planning. And I think--I cannot speak of course for the stormwater management section,but for the environmental portion the pole is going in the existing preserve area,so the preserve sections were revised to reflect changes in the preserve calculation. So that's why this portion of the PUD was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you go to-- MS.ARAQUE: --addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --5.7 in the PUD. It's now--it was attempted--there's an attempt to change it to 5.6. It says: Environmental considerations,A through D. MS.ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're being struck. MS.ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these only apply to that small preservation area where this tower's going to go? MS.ARAQUE: So these were removed because they are not needed in the document anymore. If there were not--let me back up a minute. If there were no--if this pole was not affecting what's considered the preserve,then I most likely probably wouldn't have them even make any changes to the document. But because we had to make changes to this section,we had them clean up the whole section. So if you want something different than that,you know,let me know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to have some unintended consequences come up to this Planning Commission as a result of an action that we understand is limited to a pole. And when I see language struck that,for example B,the use of native species and landscaping plans shall be in accordance with Section 2441 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Now we know that section's been revised into 04-41. But why strike it if it's harmless and not doing any damage? What's the--and the only reason again,it's because of what the unintended consequences may be. I'm finding out that things we changed in the early 2000's have--small changes have great impacts. And I like to make sure we don't inadvertently do any of those. MS.ARAQUE: If you want to keep it in,that's fine. I was just going with the more of the direction of if it's already in the Land Development Code that we remove it out of the document. So,but I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would love to see us do that. But then we should do it though across the whole program,not just pick and choose. So if everybody's going to do that and everybody's on the same page,I'm fine with that. But not all departments looked at it that way. We have utility sections in here that are not currently dated. We have little pieces and references throughout the document that we have--well, look at under traffic improvements. I mean,I'm sure that those traffic improvements have all been met and completed,it's a built out PUD. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is this a built-out PUD, 100 percent built out? Page 39 of 66 July 16,2015 MR. REISCHL: I believe there's still a parcel at the northeast quadrant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it built out in CTS?Do you know if it's known as built out in there? I can tell you in-- MR.REISCHL: I didn't check that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are they closing out PUDs that are built out still? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would think so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There was a push to close out built-out PUDs for a while. MR.REISCHL: Yes. And it's up to a certain percentage. I am not sure if this PUD meets that percentage or not. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MS.ARAQUE: Well,I definitely understand your concern,so--because we were looking at one section that was being changed because the preserves are being affected,so we had them revise this section. Mostly what is now A and was E is where the changes were made. So if you feel like certain things need to stay in,and I understand your concern because the whole document wasn't comprehensively looked at with other sections,let us know and we'll do what you think needs to be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,my suggestion is unless it relates directly to the pole location,that we not make any of these changes. MS.ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So--and I see a common element behind you with a strange look on his face. I'm sure Mr.Yovanovich has got something to contribute. I believe you represent the current owners of the overall PUD? MR.YOVANOVICH: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me kind of give you a brief history of how we even got into the preserve issue in the first place. I believe this is the master plan that's attached to the current PUD. When the--when Lauralee was going through the process of amending the PUD to add the tower as an allowed use,she attached a document that was basically a site plan for the property which identified--if you know the northeast corner of this piece of property,I think I've got it correct,at the corner of Bailey,Bailey Lane and Airport Road,there's some remaining vegetation. The site plan that was originally submitted showed that remaining vegetation,because it wasn't being touched,as part of this process. Staff wanted to put and call that preserve,which triggers a whole bunch of new regulations for this document. If you look at the old master plan you see a landscaping area around the perimeter. When staff added the designation preserve to that,which it never was labeled preserve originally,I on behalf of the property owner said wait a minute,now if you call that a preserve I can't impact the northeast corner and,guess what,the existing buildings are now nonconforming because of the 25-foot setback requirement from preserve for principal structures and a 10-foot setback requirement for accessory structures. So I said wait,stop. I don't want to call any of this preserve. I just want to call it landscape area. Because that's already addressed in the PUD,as you can see from even the strike-through and underlined,it talks about landscape area. Well,staff started down the road of well,back then that would have been technically your preserve requirement under the Comprehensive Plan. So we agreed to go back and call the perimeter stuff now preserve;it mimics essentially what was in the original master plan. And we added the deviation-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For no setbacks. MR. YOVANOVICH: --for no setbacks,because they wanted to call that a preserve instead of a landscape buffer,as originally depicted on the master plan way back when. So that's kind of how we got to where we are with some of that. And at the same time saying well, since those are all dated provisions,we may as well remove those because we've been trying to not replicate what's in the LDC. So that's how we got there. Page 40 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comprehensively that's the best way to approach these PUDs-- MR.YOVANOVICH: So since we were in that section anyway,that's why they--I believe they took care of that. The water management I don't know,I wasn't involved in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made a commitment,not for myself but to help assist someone else that--I told them we'd be out of here by 11:45 for a one-hour lunch break and we have two minutes to get there. So what I'll do is during the lunch period,if Summer can spend a few minutes with me I want to talk a little bit more off record about where she came from on these and we'll see if it fits together. I may have some more questions on it when I return. Rich? MS.WESTINE: We were able to get an extension on my room check-out,which is really what this was. We were able to get an extension to this afternoon so we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is this PUD built out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what I'm trying to find out. I was going to find out during lunch. MR.YOVANOVICH: The answer to that question is you can make modifications on the site and that's why we--I don't think it's technically built out. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's a no. Okay,thank you. MR.REISCHL: And Ray just checked CTS and it doesn't appear to be built out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's some water management provisions that were struck out. Is there anybody here from water management? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,because those are pertaining to some off-site requirements concerning the Poinciana Village/Gordon River outfall. I'm not sure--if they've been completed,that's fine. They probably have been. But I still don't see why we need to take them out. They're a good record to know how things were done and how the responsibilities were attained. So at least from that perspective I can't see taking the water management concerns out. The environmental considerations,I don't like the idea of nitpicking a PUD and taking some out and leaving others in,but I'll be glad to go along with what the rest of this panel thinks. There's plenty of references throughout this document that fall under the same category of needing clean-up that have not been done,so I think it's a mistake to pick and choose. Lauralee,on your variance issues. MS. WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the last--second--yeah, last page,I'm sorry,very last page,top of the page. MS.WESTINE: Last page of the staff report or last page-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last page of the PUD.Well,it's attached to the end of the PUD. It's your variance--it's titled Variance Criteria. MS.WESTINE: And is it within the staff report? Page 11 of 13? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it was electronically sent to me it followed the PUD. MS. WESTINE: All right,let me search.Bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the same questions that Andrew talked about on your variance,okay? MS.WESTINE: I think I have it. It's what I proposed. Yes,I gotcha. I'm sorry,I didn't know whether you were talking about the way staff addressed them or the way I addressed them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I guess it's the way you addressed them. They'd be your criteria. The last paragraph. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second sentence. MS. WESTINE: Where am I? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says: The unmanned monopine which does not use water, sewer,roads Page 41 of 66 July 16,2015 or school,is a far less intrusive use than an allowable industrial use in the area. This is an office park,office zoning,there's only allowed office buildings. Do you know how that argument fits what we're here to discuss? MS.WESTINE: Well, I should,since I wrote it. I think the point I'm trying to make was that the--a lot of times towers are considered industrial or they're considered very commercially type uses,and the point I was trying to make was that we don't have the impact for example that maybe a 7-Eleven would have or a McDonald's,we don't have the traffic impacts,we don't have the school impacts.That's really where I was going with it. And I think I probably misused a descriptive adjective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next sentence: Furthermore,the approval of the monopine allows for the adequate provisions of facilities so as to maintain a smooth progression of growth. I'm not sure how a monopine tower influences a smooth progression of growth,whether you put that tower at 75 feet or 150,growth isn't going to change because of it. I mean,your client base may be influenced by it but I don't understand that statement. The only reason,since this is a variance and you are asking for it based under various criteria in being consistent with the GMP,I just think those last two sentences don't seem to coincide with the use that we're talking about so I just wanted to make that note to you. I don't know what you can do about it,but-- I'm going to check a couple other documents I have to see-- MS. WESTINE: I have more of a presentation,just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,do you? Please,yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you--thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know you had more of a presentation. I'm sorry. MS. WESTINE: I did. Well,I wanted to get Dan heard so that we had that information on the record,and then I wanted to kind of keep going through. And I'm going to jump around because a lot of these things that I have in my notes have already been addressed. Staff has already addressed within their staff report 10.020.13(B)(5), 10.03(5)(I),and then the criteria in 5.05.09(G)(2). And they've actually done--they've gone through and they've actually addressed a majority of those. What I do want to is I want to kind of hit the highlights. We aren't asking to--I'm sorry,we are asking to amend the existing PUD but we are not creating a new zoning district,which is one of the considerations that you all have to look at. And the PUD boundaries themselves are not being modified. The boundaries remain the same. What we're doing is impacting within the boundaries. We have proposed a camouflage style pole versus a traditional pole. We could--there's nothing within your code that requires in certain districts certain types of camouflage. So what we've tried to do is to take a vegetative area and then blend something in as much as we can. With that said,I understand that there's a difference between 150 feet and then a 65-foot pine tree. But with that said,we still made an effort to disguise it so that it meets a camouflage requirement so that the external antennas are then covered by those branches,that the pole itself is painted brown. One of the things that your staff has found is that the monopine would not alter any existing land use patterns. We will not impact the itself existing use of the offices. If anything,frankly,we'll give them better coverage there. We--the proposed development will not cause our existing site to be out of compliance. We still comply with the 30 percent open space and we also comply with the preserve requirement that was discussed earlier. We don't impact traf--going to my statement,we don't impact traffic,we don't impact sewer,waters, schools,or the--and there's currently a water management plan on the site. Generally speaking,these sites generally one trip per month per carrier is kind of what we like to say. So in this particular instance you might have four techs out there a month looking at the site and making sure everything's okay. With that said,I've had techs kind of look at me and roll their eyes and say,look,if it's not popping up on the computer screen,it's probably-- Page 42 of 66 July 16, 2015 THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MS. WESTINE: I'm running. I'm sorry. One more time. As a general rule,though,this generates one trip per month per carrier.And in this particular instance we've proposed a tower that can support four carriers. Mr.Mullin's--I'm going to let Mr.Mullin's testimony stand on its own because it was I think explored very,very well. One of the things that I put on the screen for you all was the 9-1-1 statistics. Collier County has the highest number of wireless 9-1-1 calls in any jurisdiction that I work in. The previous high was Hillsborough County which was 74 percent,and you guys are at 79.3 percent.I think that does say something as to whose--does say something as to this county's use of wireless. One of the criteria is how the conditions change that would allow this modification of the PUD. And one of the--again,we're a hybrid application. We're actually asking for a PUD amendment so we have to apply the PUD amendment criteria. But then in the Tower Code,which we really haven't applied under,but under the tower code if I want a variance for my residential separation,I have to look at the variance-- THE COURT REPORTER: Again,slow down. MS.WESTINE: --criteria. Sony. One of the criteria is how has times changed. And I would suggest to you that we are now a wireless community. We are all nowadays dependent on our phones and on our wireless tools. I think those 9-1-1 statistics do talk--do speak volumes,frankly. Additionally you have a lot of folks nowadays who simply are getting rid of their landlines and they're trying to save expenses,and they're using only wireless services. I talked earlier about the visibility and about the tree being visible and that's certainly not something that I can hide from.I don't pretend to. I think what this board is being asked to do is balance the visibility of the base because--I mean,the visibility of the top,because certainly the base isn't going to be visible. Where it's located--and I don't have the aerial. It's in here somewhere.I'm going to use this one. I'm putting up there what's marked as PS-1. But if you can look to see where the star is located,that's generally the vicinity of where we're placing the tower. The base of the tower is not really going to be the issue. The base of the tower is the wall and where the equipment is housed. That's not what's going to be visible to people. So what we are asking you to do is balance the visibility of the top of the tower versus what benefits this tower brings to this community.And I again point back to those 9-1-1 calls. And I would ask you to recall Dan's testimony that at this point with our lack of capacity in the area no one's guaranteed to get a 9-1-1 call off. When those antennas are full--and I realize that I'm way oversimplifying what Dan said,but when those antennas are full,they're simply full.Another call can't come up and join that antenna. So that is something that you all are being asked to balance. And I would suggest to you that the benefits that this tower brings to this community does outweigh any potential visibility impact. And I'm trying to skip through things that we've already addressed so that I don't--do you have a question? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I do have a question. MS.WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the information that was given to us as to the map with all our cell towers,I did notice that,and they're both AT&T,one is at 300 South Collier Boulevard and one is at 520 South Collier Boulevard,and they're both just AT&T. Why two blocks apart do you have that? MS.WESTINE: If you let me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get closer to the mic if you could,Lauralee. MS.WESTINE: I'm sorry. If you let me get to my tower maps and let me get to that. We did actually find on your tower map that we saw within the staff report that you've got two sites that are listed as being in Naples when actually they're in Marco Island. So they're about 15 or 16 miles off. But let me find--and I'm going to ask Dan to come up and take a look at that. I can't find my map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got an overhead.I've got a projection of that map that might be easier Page 43 of 66 July 16, 2015 to put on the--well,it's a little bit better now. MS. WESTINE: Let me find it. It's within the staff report,I recall. If you can give me the numbers,ma'am,of the towers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She might be able to point them out. This is a blow-up of the map showing the different colors. The AT&T cell towers or antennas are supposed to be the ones in blue. MS.WESTINE: I don't have a copy of that map. The only thing I have is they're numbered. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,22 and 24. MS.WESTINE: 22 and 24. So it's 300 South Collier and then 520 South Collier. Does any of that--so let me look at where they are on the map. 22 and 24? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: 24 on this map is on Marco. MS.WESTINE: Those are substantially down there. MR.REISCHL: They're on Marco on my map,Diane. MS.WESTINE: Are those probably rooftops? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the point. MR.MULLIN: We had rooftops down on Marco Island. I can't attest to the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the relevance to this one? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,because it's AT&T,I was just looking at the closeness of them, and I'm saying well,if they're AT&T why do you have them right next to each other? MR.MULLIN: Most of the times if we have something that close--I'm Dan Mullin,I have been sworn in. If we have something that's that close,it's typically for capacity as our one site is so overloaded that we can put another site very close to it. So that typically would be a reason for us to have sites close to each other. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But those could be just simply antennas;is that correct? MS.WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rooftops antennas. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. And that goes back to my previous question about additional antennas on some of the existing towers that are in this area that we're talking about here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think that was part of the beginning of our discussion today when we asked for other real estate sites that could possibly accommodate either an expansion or additional tower. Because if you had other sites you could put lower towers in and still be within the allowed height and not get to a double the tower size. That was one of the questions I had asked earlier,and I think that leads to the same thing,a rooftop antenna would function the same way. MS.WESTINE: Let me have Dan address that. Dan,when AT&T is looking for a new site,are rooftop possibilities something that you look at in addition to co-locations? MR.MULLIN: Absolutely,yes,we do look at that. But we typically allow our vendor to find those opportunities for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan,you'll need to get a little closer to the mic,sir. MR. MULLIN: We would typically let our vendor who goes out and does the searching bring us back the candidates,and they didn't bring us anything back here that is tall enough for a rooftop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're not here today,are they? The vendor that did the research for the sites. MS.WESTINE: No,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we're at a break point for lunch and I can see we're going to be going into additional--any finishing up of your presentation,Lauralee,when we get back.We'll have staff presentation at that time.And then we'll have--entertain public speakers. And after that if there's any rebuttal needed you're more than welcome to have a rebuttal period. MS.WESTINE: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we'll take a break right now and come back at--what's the matter, Page 44 of 66 July 16,2015 Charlene? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I was going to say a short lunch maybe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not for me. We're going to be here quite a while this afternoon. I mean, it's not a good--I don't think it's a good idea today. It would be if we had a short wrap-up,but I don't think it's going to be that short. So we'll just--on that chance let's go for an hour and we'll come back at 1:00. (Luncheon Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody,welcome back from the break. When we left off we were discussing some of the other questions involving the PUD. Lauralee,did you have anything you wanted to add to your presentation before we go to staff report? MS. WESTINE: Just briefly. I kind of want to wrap up. Looking at the intent perspective,looking at the purpose and intent part of your code which is 5.05.09,one of the things that it talks about is minimizing visual impacts which we propose to camouflage the tower to comply with that. It talks about avoiding damaging any other properties. This is actually within your Tower Code,this isn't within your PUD code. Goes back to my this is a hybrid application. We've proposed a 32-foot fall zone,which we've had testimony to. It talks about shared use,which we've proposed a four user tower where candidly at 150 feet we don't have to but that's just the wise thing to do. It talks about lessening the impact on the migratory birds. Specifically we've provided a NEPA at this stage of the game to do that. And it talks about any concerns of Mosquito Control,and we have within your package a no objection letter from Mosquito Control. They've taken a look at this as well. I talked about the height and the other co-locations,we've talked about that. I think candidly I'm here for any questions you may have. I think throughout the presentation I've kind of hit on just about everything that's left to be said. So I may after rebuttal try and take a moment to kind of put it all back in gear,but I think I'm okay for now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,does anybody have any questions of the applicant before we move to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred,let's move into the staff report. MR.REISCHL: Thank you. Mr.Chairman,Commissioners,Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. We analyzed this application and we believe that it meets the criteria,both the PUD criteria,the rezone criteria and the variance criteria. It does create a visual impact. We believe that that had--will be somewhat ameliorated by the camouflage characteristics of the monopine. There were three letters of objection in your packet,including one from Poinciana Civic. Also at the NIM I got--there were two folks there who were in favor,along with the one person who was opposed. And I did get a phone call from someone who was in favor. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,does anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,let's turn to your PUD findings. And number four in your staff report,the question was--or the finding was: 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. Your response was: The only proposed change is the addition of a communications tower. Staff believes that the approval of this amendment will continue to be compatible with the surrounding area, subject to existing development standards and project deviations. The current standard for that area is 75 feet. This doubles that. And if this doubles that,and staff believes that's compatible then with the surrounding area,when would it not be? I mean,my concern from day one with this application was the consistency issue that's going to be argued going forward. Page 45 of 66 July 16, 2015 Have you--do you know anywhere that we've allowed a similar activity to occur doubling of a height of a standard like this in Collier County? MR.REISCHL: No. Honestly the conditional uses and PUD amendments for tower height are very rare. I remember doing one back in the late Nineties at Seagate Baptist at Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge. And that's the last one I remember doing. I mean,it's a rare commodity. Most of these meet the height for the district. MR.BELLOWS: And if they don't,they go through the other process,a Conditional Use,if it's straight zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Have you--do you know of any that are situated in a commercial use that was restricted to 75 feet,as this one is,that had a request and approval to double its height? MR.REISCHL: I do not. I'm not saying there isn't,I just don't know of any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my concern stems from--and that question stems from the ability for that to be used as a consistency argument for all the light commercial in Collier County. Basically we're looking at a C-1 district. It's a--there's only a couple of uses allowed here: Professional office building,I believe,and maybe a medical facility. So it's either C-1 or maybe C-2 at the most. That would really literally I think bring a lot of people to think that this particular use then could be expanded to the height we're allowing here in other localities throughout the county. And that's my concern. And I didn't know how staff--if staff looked at that as an issue or anything else. That's why I'm asking in relationship to your findings. MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. When staff reviews an amendment to a PUD,no matter what the change is,we look at the current square footages that are allowed if it's commercial,current number of dwelling units,and we look at what the change is.There might be PUD amendments that had doubling a number of residential units in there. We don't necessarily have a cap on the number of units other than being consistent with the density rating system. There's a process for communication towers to go higher than what is the standard height.That's either through a Conditional Use or through a PUD amendment where it's a public hearing and the impacts are vetted and possible additional mitigation provided. So in that regard it's almost like building heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and I understand that. But see,staff found this to be basically approved--basically okay pursuant to their submittal. And my concern is that if it was okay here and they were--they were somewhere else where someone else came in with a similar artificial tree at 150 feet or double,how would we say no to that? We're almost changing our standards to this become almost typical. Because I think it could be argued that way. And that's what I'm concerned about. MR.BELLOWS: Well,I understand what you're saying,but each amendment is taken on its own impacts to the surrounding uses. So a different PUD in a different area has different issues. Such as a building height that's proposed within a PUD,it may be appropriate at one location to have 100 foot tall building and inappropriate in another to have anything over 50. So it's certainly always looked at on a case-by-case basis based on location and the surrounding uses,whether staff would support a tower of this height or a building of this height. MR.REISCHL: And particularly with this site,because of the pine canopy there,it seemed appropriate. Granted,it's higher than the natural pine canopy,but it wasn't something that stood out like putting this in the middle of a field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you checked other jurisdictions to see how they have treated these? MR.REISCHL: I have not,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,maybe the applicant has and we can find out when they come back up. Most of my questions were trying to understand the consistency issue. So that's all I've got at this point from staff. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got just a couple now that I think about it. First,I just want to make sure that I understand the 75-foot height that we've been talking about that Page 46 of 66 July 16,2015 is something that would be allowed there. My understanding is that that 75-foot height is based upon the setback and that safety issue that we were discussing,or is that just a flat 75-foot limit on cell towers under the LDC? MR.REISCHL: Yeah,that's in the-- MS.WESTINE: Hold on,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no,the question's being asked of staff. You'll have your turn in rebuttal,Lauralee. MR.REISCHL: It's in the communication tower section and it allows 75 feet. You have to meet setbacks. That's another deviation that they're asking for is the deviation from the setbacks. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. The other question I had was we've seen the simulations of what it's going to look like. I mean,have you determined,for example,from each of these views,you know,how much of it would be seen at 150 feet as opposed to 75 feet? If you can even determine that? I'm just trying to get an idea of how much is going to be sticking out,so to speak. MR.REISCHL: Well,and Lauralee said this on the record,but she also in our review she told us this,that they use a balloon up to that height so that the photo shopper,whatever they are,knows how high to draw the monopine. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right. But I guess my question is,you know,given the tree lines,I mean,about how much of it's going to be visible? Is it half of it,is it 10 feet,20 feet? Just to know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How tall are the trees in the PUD? MR.BELLOWS: Staff had these same issues and concerns,and that's where this line of sight drawing comes in-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR.BELLOWS: --that was presented earlier today. MR.REISCHL: And Mr.Chrzanowski's question about how-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How tall are the trees in the PUD? The trees that are out there,what are they,75 foot? MR. REISCHL: I didn't measure them,but most pine trees,judging from my biological knowledge, are 80 to 90 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your biological knowledge,huh? Fred,I'll tell you what,you're venturing into territory that-- MR.REISCHL: College days. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all I have.Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have anything of staff? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I support staffs conclusion on this and appreciate the efforts put in by Lauralee and hers. The monopine,I mean,it's needed service as we grow and change. The monopine to me is a better landmark than a lot of other stuff that I see--get to see. It's almost artwork,you know,in a way. And if it was it would probably be allowed. I like that it is wildlife friendly. Not to be too ambiguous,but seemingly safe as far as we've gotten into this. And the other thing left would be some type of road trip to go see one of these to see if I liked it or not. But I've seen them along the Pennsylvania Turnpike numerously,and I haven't had to live next to them,though I stated if one was in my yard perhaps I'd be okay with it just for better service. Because I live with my phone nowadays and for me better service is good. So that's about it. I mean,I support the staffs recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we need to go to public speakers if we're done with the staff. So with that,Ray or Fred,are there any registered public speakers? MR.REISCHL: We have--all the applicant's team are registered,so I don't think we need to call them. And Brad Estes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Brad? MR.ESTES: I wrote good morning,but now it's good afternoon. Page 47 of 66 July 16, 2015 I'm going to read this,because I think it's important to have my comments specific in the record. And I will attempt to be--read slowly. My name is Brad Estes. I'm here today regarding Wilson Professional Center Communications Tower application. I will speak on behalf of the Poinciana Civic Association of Naples,Inc.of which I'm an officer. I also appear individually as an impacted property owner in Poinciana Village. Our family trust owns three properties in Poinciana Village,two within a short distance of the Wilson Professional Center. We have about 1,300 residents in Poinciana Village,and about--and we have 450 residential units, not including the condominium apartments there. Thank you,Commission,Chairman Strain,for the 10 minutes. I'll try not to use all of it. The association board of directors and I personally are opposed to the pending application for the communications tower. Our president has submitted a letter. Our opposition is based on aesthetics,the loss of a vista or view to the north that I and our residents have enjoyed for in my case 40 years,in the case of some residents,45 years. Our first C.O.was in 1970. The proposed 150-foot communications tower at Wilson Professional Center will render the planned unit development aesthetically incompatible with surrounding land use. The proposal is also inconsistent with the expressed values of Collier County citizens where the loss of aesthetics due to development has been of utmost concern for at least 30 years. Community values have been incorporated into public policy and practice over time.Examples would be landscaping requirements for commercial developments,signage, privacy walls,lighting,issues of that sort. My testimony today will place in the record the formalized development community values and efforts to influence Collier County's government preparedness for emergency substantial growth in the mid 1980's. The community concern focused on avoiding the regulatory missteps of Florida southeast coast.A substantial no growth movement had emerged in Collier County that was in the late Seventies and early Eighties. Recognizing growth was inevitable,community leaders,concerned individuals,civic associates including the president's council and local governments joined together to develop strategies to manage growth with a focus on preservation of the unique character and natural beauty of Collier County in the small town atmosphere. The two most notable efforts were the American Institute of Architect's R/UDAT study by visiting community planning professionals in 1986. The other was FOCUS,a community visioning project in 1995. Collier County supported and participated in both the efforts. I was personally involved in both of those efforts as well. Collier County government responded by implementing many of the recommendations from the community process as mentioned above including,including sensitivity to the compatibility of commercial development with residential use,the point of my comments.Commercial zoning categories which assure compatibility of commercial development with residential use were adopted. That's the C-1 zone that we're talking about. Collier County government currently includes among its 10-year strategic plan objectives the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood character by ensuring the land uses that are compatible with area character.Assures the land uses that are compatible with area character. Most recently,and very importantly,the Collier County Commission opposed a moratorium on gas stations in order to research and rewrite regulations and response to a new trend of mega gas stations to assure their compatibility with adjacent residential use.The Commission approved a draft of the changes on July 7th,which you all reviewed as well.And these changes include structural aesthetic requirements. Moving forward to the application being considered today,the Poinciana Civic Association opposed the original commercial planned unit development in 1987. However,we became one of the first benefactors of Collier County Commission's decision to ensure compatibility of commercial development with residential use. The Wilson Professional Center is now the optimal commercial neighbor as a result,and has been since it was developed. We view this 1987 decision as a perpetual commitment of compatibility to our neighborhood by agreement of both parties,Collier County government,and the current and any substantial owners of the Wilson Professional Center. Page 48 of 66 July 16, 2015 Considering the 30-year history of concern for preserving our natural beauty which belongs to all of us,the pending decision regarding the communications tower has serious implications. Approval of the Wilson Professional Center tower application would create uncertainty about,if not set aside,the importance of aesthetic compatibility for commercial development and residential use. Realizing that government officials cannot base their decisions solely on inconsistency with community values,our opposition to this application is also based on four issues: The application is inconsistent with the Board of County Commissioners'intent for the planned unit development. Both ordinances 87-92,which was the original ordinance,and 92-23 which was the amended ordinance,contains 11 conditions which assure that the approved site development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. And that's what the ordinance actually says,compatible with and complementary to--compatible with the complementary to the surrounding land uses.That's a maximum height of 35 feet. The uniformed sign--common uniform signage;the common architectural theme;a prohibition of exterior metal clad buildings;underground utilities;pad-mounted electrical transformers located and screened as to prevent viewing from any public street or adjacent property;outside storage screened from adjacent properties;and a conceptual plan which includes a landscape buffer. As you are aware,probably better than I, Section 1.08.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code defines compatibility as a condition in which land uses or conditions can exist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. Number two: The 150-foot tower is out of character in the proposed location. Proposed tower is out of character because of the tower's proposed height of 150 feet which would be significant and in obvious contrast to the natural setting where our estimation of the trees in that area,the pine trees in that area are 50 and 60 feet. I didn't measure them,so that's just our estimation. Therefore,the tower would be aesthetically incompatible. The maximum permitted building height is 35 feet,presumably to be compatible with the natural setting. The proposed tower,even though planned to be camouflaged as a pine tree,would extend approximately 100 to 125 feet above any on-site or adjacent existing structures or vegetation. The tower also would have up to four viewable exterior antennas from 170 to 140--excuse me, 107 to 140 feet. It would be a tower containing 33 feet of antennas near the top. And there's also a consideration--there is an assumption,excuse me,there's an assumption that the existing vegetation would exist as a mitigation factor to the tower.That's as long as those trees exist. And if you've visited Homestead after Hurricane Andrew,you'll know that there are--there were no pine trees with any vegetation. In fact, some of those pine trees are dead and remain there to this day. And there's also the situation involving fire. So we have no assurance that that mitigating factor of an existing pine forest will exist. Three: The application is inconsistent with Collier County's policy of only allowing the most compatible commercial uses near residential areas. As we discussed,this site would be C-1 zoning,based on the description of C-1 zoning in the Land Development Code. And this is a question that I have,my assumption originally was that we would only allow by permit up to 75 feet. But that would also be inconsistent with the height limitation on the buildings of 35 feet. So I don't know which supersedes one another. But that would be a question that I would,you know,still have. Criteria for the variance have not been satisfied. We disagree that there are any special conditions,circumstances,preexisting conditions or undue hardships that suggest the applicant or property owner should be granted a variance. Communication towers have been around for decades. I mean,literally decades.And so if the developer Wilson--the Wilson-Miller-Barton-Sullivan-Peak,the owner,wanted to have a communications tower on that site or at least allow for the development,they could have asked for that. They could have asked for that whenever they amended the PUD ordinance in 1992. They did not. So we think that they have agreed to the PUD as it is,certainly within the requirements that it be complementary and compatible with the surrounding land uses. Now,if they wanted to make other changes, I'm not sure we would oppose them,but changes that affect our residential neighborhood we certainly would. Page 49 of 66 July 16, 2015 In conclusion,the staff refers to the January 14th,2015 United States Supreme Court decision T-Mobile South versus City of Roswell,Georgia. That decision related to local government not communicating reasons in writing for a denial of a cell phone tower. However,that case did not challenge the traditional authority of local governments regarding decisions related to the placement,construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities. In fact,the court affirmed local authority,only noting the restrictions in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Of particular interest in that case to our concerns about tower aesthetics are Justice Alito's concurring comments in the City of Roswell case. Justice Alito wrote that a succinct statement that a permit has been denied because a tower could be aesthetically incompatible with the surrounding area would suffice. Now, he's one justice,but that's one justice's opinion about aesthetics. That's my formal presentation. We are required to submit substantial evidence in a written reviewable form in any written format reviewable by a court,and I want to ask that I be able to do that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have it with you? MR.ESTES: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show me? MR.ESTES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have copies for everybody,or not? I think my prior discussion with you--you have to use the mic too,Brad. MR.ESTES: I'm sorry. I have three copies. No,I do not have copies for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless there's an objection from the panel,we can admit it for the record, but with the acknowledgment we haven't had time to review it. MR. ESTES: I understand,I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,leave a copy with the court reporter. And we will not have access to it to review it in time for this meeting. MR.ESTES: The attachments are--the submittal from almost all cases just simply has copies of the various codes and regulations of Collier County. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are we going to see it after the fact? Are they going to scan it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that in a format that can be--well,do you have a copy you can lea--another copy you can leave with us? MR.ESTES: Sure. Of course,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like you to do is leave it with one of the staff members and they can electronically PDF that to us. MR.ESTES: Sure. Absolutely,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also PDF it to the applicant as well. MR.ESTES: Okay,I will do. I have a copy for the applicant today. The other thing,in listening to the--and thank you for the excellent questions,because I learned a lot too. The thing that impressed me is that--how could I say this diplomatically? If AT&T doesn't have the band width to address the customers in this area,then they--have they oversold? Do they have more subscribers than they can handle? Because what they're--what I understand them as saying is their tower on--and frankly,you can see two towers from--or two cell phone sites from Poinciana Village,one on IberiaBank and the other on Shirley Street. Then have they sold in excess of what they can handle based on their tower capacity? And like--and I think it was a good question,should they not be first out looking for additional capacity versus additional towers? One of the concerns,as I mentioned,is that this is going to be a tower within about a little less than two miles of another tower.And probably less--and this area is probably only about a mile. And what's the future of neighborhoods regarding cellular towers if we're going to be wanting one every mile or two? Page 50 of 66 July 16,2015 So thank you for your time. And I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to answer one of yours. You asked about the height. You're right about the height on the project being restricted to I think it was 35 feet. Yes,35 feet. But if this were to be approved under 4.2(1)(3),they're adding it as a principal use with a limitation of 150 feet for that principal use for just one tower. MR.ESTES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's how it's being modified. That's how it works. MR.ESTES: My concern was that it was--because it's a commercial PUD it has a--what is a right to do 75 feet without amending the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they do,not because--yeah,because it's a commercial PUD and towers are allowed in the commercial--and industrial at 75 feet by right. So that was the basis under which I believe staff acknowledged. It could be 75 feet high by right. MR.ESTES: Okay,thank you. MR.BELLOWS: The use-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the use? MR.REISCHL: But the use is not included in the PUD. You'd still need a PUD amendment to include the use. MR.ESTES: Okay. All right,thank you very much. Appreciate your listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir,appreciate it. And please provide those packages to everybody,if you could. Okay,are there any other speakers that wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that,I'd like to get a couple more things understood with staff, and that is the strike-throughs that are here that are not relevant to the tower. And from water management perspective,during break I asked a couple of staff members if there was any reason why--is anything hurt by leaving that language in. And the answer is no. I understand we always strive to reduce language that is redundant or not necessary.The problem is I don't think we ought to do it on a pick and choose basis throughout the PUD.Either we clean the whole PUD up or we leave that language because there's no telling what they might have led to from the past. So I'd like to leave 5.6 in as it was. And under the environmental conditions,the same way,there's several of them there. Strike-through. I talked to Summer during break,she really didn't have an issue with leaving them in. They don't do anything either for or against the issue,so rather than taking a chance that might trigger something unexpected like Mr. Yovanovich is going to tell us right now,I would just like to leave them in. But Rich? MR.YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I don't care if the language stays in;it wasn't my idea to take it out in the first place. But the new language that's being added to those sections I think is important. One,it accurately reflects the actual SDP;and two,the reference to the preserve area,that's really what peaked my interest in the very beginning about creating hardships with that. So as long as new language is coming in I'm okay with leaving the old language in as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. It was the old language being removed I was concerned about. Back at the--we already went through this preserve issue with the Greider House in Olde Cypress years ago. That's been settled. So I would have to agree that preserve situation needs to be cleaned up. That cleans it up. So your added language is not a problem as far as I'm concerned. MR.YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us past the PUD. I had a couple notes. Lauralee,could I ask you a few remaining questions? And I was reading the minutes from the neighborhood information meeting. During those minutes I believe it was indicated that the antennas would be hidden by the branches? MS.WESTINE: Yes. Page 51 of 66 July 16, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There'd be--no part of the antennas will expand outside the branches? MS.WESTINE: No,the branches will be wider than the antennas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No more than four antennas will be on the tower? MS.WESTINE: Let me say this: That is what we are showing. I do not believe that in my experience that you want to limit that. And I say that because I have a situation right now where the Sheriffs Office wants to add a dish to a tower and I actually have it in order in Hillsborough County that there shall only be four antenna arrays,and I had to go back in and delay the Sheriffs Office from putting an antenna up by about four months because I had agreed to that. I've since learned. So the answer is,is we show a tower that only supports four antenna arrays. With that said,these towers ever overdesigned. I would hate to be back in front of you if somebody wants to put in an emergency management dish or something like that on there. But yes,we show four. If you want to limit us to four ante--and the only thing I would ask is that it say arrays. Because it's not four antenna levels,it's not four antennas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MS.WESTINE: Okay. As long as--I'm fine,but I do throw in the caveat of just spending quality time in Hillsborough County fixing something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the tower,if it were to be approved,would be painted brown and green or something to that effect? MS.WESTINE: The tower itself would be painted brown and the branches are of a green material. They are not painted,but they are the green material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Said to be of medium density branches. Is there a way to describe that? MS.WESTINE: There is. Medium density is 2.25 branches per foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that is a descriptive term used somewhere. What document is it that it's used in? MS. WESTINE: It's not used in any of the documents,it's just how you order a tower.Let me grab the rest of my notes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a picture back there in a catalog I saw. Can you pop that up? MS.WESTINE: I can. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And is that what it's going to look like? MS. WESTINE: What you've seen,I just talked to Mr.Checchio and I'm putting it up,that's full density. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you're not going full density? MS.WESTINE: I'll be candid with you,I don't know the difference between full density and 2.25. When I called and got the 2.25 as the standard,I don't--I'm looking back to--if I can ask Mr.Checchio real quick. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,take your time. MR.CHECCHIO: Should I had come up? MS. WESTINE: Yeah,come on up. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm in no hurry to go home. MS.WESTINE: I'll organize my stuff while you're there. MR.CHECCHIO: There are 259 pine branches on this tree. 259. The way they cull out the density on these trees is this picture right here is full density. And the reason why is because the trees around it are low. They're probably only about 30 feet tall. So in your case here you have trees around it so you don't have to put the branches down below the existing level,okay,there's not a reason for that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. Why bother. MR.CHECCHIO: Pardon? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why bother. MR.CHECCHIO: Why bother. The cost really is what it's all about. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you start up above the trees that are there and-- Page 52 of 66 July 16, 2015 MR.CHECCHIO: Right below it so it blends in. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR.CHECCHIO: So like I said,there's 259 branches on this tree. That's a lot of branches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the density,which means the--let's say the opacity of the tree branches is the same. You're referring to a starting point in one of the branches-- MR.CHECCHIO: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --is that a fair statement? MR. CHECCHIO: You're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if I'm not mistaken,your documentation says you're going to start these branches 30 feet above the ground. MS.WESTINE: True. That's what our plans show,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought,okay. So you have 120 feet of branches. MS.WESTINE: That's what our plans show,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So really,the medium density branch,your intention is you start branches at 30 feet above ground. MR.CHECCHIO: Well,it depends on the area. You know,I don't know why this is called a medium density. This is probably--what I'm looking at here,you are correct,it does start at the 30-foot elevation. So this would be considered in my view a full density tree. Yeah,it's going to pretty much look just like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that clears it up a little bit. Thank you. That's what I was trying to get to. MS. WESTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of anybody before we go into the applicant's rebuttal? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I do have a question. I believe Mr. Solis asked earlier,but you--there was a-- 150 feet and 92 feet was mentioned. MS.WESTINE: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What is the difference as far as how far out it goes?Between the 92--if you put up a 92 foot?Because you just mentioned this 150-foot is over designed. Now,if you went the-- MS.WESTINE: Structurally,you are correct. Structurally. Structurally. Not from a radio frequency engineering,but from a structural perspective. Sony. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What about the 92 foot? Would that satisfy your needs? MS. WESTINE: What the testimony was earlier was that when we ran it,the 92 feet only covered 80 percent of the targeted population. At 150 feet the testimony was that it covered 93 percent of the targeted population. The other thing that I had brought up earlier was to take into account at the 92-foot level that you weren't going to get the other collocaters. So right now we've proposed a total of four. At 92 feet-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: It would just be AT&T. MS.WESTINE: If they even chose to build it at 92. And I appreciate that finances aren't your alts issue. Bless Stan's heart for caring about them. But that's something that,you know,obviously every company has to take into account,finances. But did I answer your question? I went off on a tangent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I was just wanting to know the percentage,because there is a 58 point difference. And what you're really saying at this point at 150 you can add for. If it were to go down to 92,it would only house AT&T. MS.WESTINE: Most likely,yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Interesting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other question I had asked of staff and maybe I should have asked of Page 53 of 66 July 16, 2015 you is,what other jurisdictions allow these towers at this height for this configuration in this kind of zoning? I mean,do you have any experience with those? MS.WESTINE: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WESTINE: Let me say I started--I came from being a prosecutor in 1999,I started working in this industry doing these tower-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Talk a little slower. I can tell you're moving too fast already. MS.WESTINE: Sorry,my brain is--I've been doing this since 1999. I worked literally from Key West all the way up to South Georgia.And generally speaking,and you were asking about height. As a general rule,the heights that I'm applying for are between 125 feet and 199 feet as monopoles or as flag poles or as things like that. The difference that I have seen since I've been doing this is not that the height has gone down,it's more that they have moved towards different camouflage techniques. So for example,I have a hideous picture of a tree that I do have with me but I will not show you.Our camouflage techniques from 1994 are obviously substantially different than they are today,as you can see from that photograph.That's what has changed. 75 feet--I can tell you where I've been. I had a 1 -- 180--no, 199-foot pole approved in Sarasota by their planning commission last Thursday. I was just recently in front of Pinellas County with 150 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of zoning district were they looking at in comparison to the surrounding residential? Because we've got 400-foot towers here in some places. It's just that's the issue. MS.WESTINE: You're 2.5 times the tower height residential separation is substantial. It's considerably more than most. I will tell you,Pinellas County is 100 percent of the tower height. 2.25 is considerable. Can I--while we're on the topic of height I do want to correct something. We keep talking about how 75 feet is permitted. And what I want to direct everyone's attention to is under the development standards of telecommunication towers is 75 feet is permitted without doing the 2.5 times the tower height setback. If you go to the next sentence what it says is,is that any tower that exceeds--and this is under,let me be very clear,under commerciaUindustrial zoning districts. So this is what we're talking about when we say we're a commercial PUD. It then goes on to say: Any tower that exceeds 75 feet up to 185 feet is a lawful use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which section of the code are you reading from? MS.WESTINE: So I'm in 5.05.9-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should be section G,probably. MS.WESTINE: Probably. Bear with me. G2A. Thank you,whoever chimed in for me. My only concern was is that we've somewhat gotten wrapped around the axle here about this 75-foot maximum height. And that's not what your code allowed. Your code does say that you can go up to--in those types of districts you can go up to 185 feet,provided that you meet the two and a half times the tower height residential separation. The last line is,is those towers that don't may apply for a variance in accordance with,and then the 9.04 standards. So unfortunately we keep saying 75 feet is permissible. I just want to leave it--I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page that--actually in commercial and industrial districts. Your code actually allows people to go up to 185. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,how do you know that the sentence you're reading doesn't refer to--when it says respective zoning districts it's referring to the reference,the nearest boundary of all those other zoning districts that are listed. You're rolling it back in commercial/industrial. MS.WESTINE: I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a long paragraph. MS.WESTINE: It absolutely is,you're right. Yes,I believe that it's talking about--specifically it's addressing in in-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the base is separated. So you're looking--okay,I see where you're reading. Not a problem. Page 54 of 66 July 16, 2015 MS.WESTINE: I just--and that doesn't really change anything other than the 75 feet and doubling it,we keep talking about that.And candidly,we're actually asking for less than the maximum for--we are asking for a var--we are not asking--we're asking for I guess a waiver,because we're not asking for a variance because we're a PUD and we're trying to set our own standards. We're a highbred,I keep saying that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you roll down on that same code you just looked at. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five. MS. WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ground mounted monopole communication towers up to 150 feet in height above the natural grade,including antennas,may be allowed as a conditional use with any zoning districts. And the last sentence: The height of each monopole communication tower shall be limited to the height necessary for its use at its location. MS.WESTINE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And its height necessary at its use's location has been one of the factors I've been concerned about when I asked and we saw your charts today and I said,well,where's the comparison chart for 75 feet? You didn't have it. You didn't have one for 92 feet. I asked what kind of information you have involving the surrounding areas you may have looked to see if you could put towers there and you left that to a vendor who's not here today. Those are some concerns I had in relationship to that sentence. And if you move down and go to number seven,at the end of 7.B-- MS.WESTINE: 7.B,got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --it talks about the towers in excess of 75 feet and then it says how it should be separated. And it says: And from all other surrounding property boundaries by a distance not less than one-half the height of the tower and its antennas or the tower's certified collapse area,whichever distance is greater. And when I read that certified letter that you're--I guess the engineer that wrote it wasn't here,so another gentleman come up and tried to explain it. It was a very ambiguous letter. It wasn't straight this isn't going to happen, it's just all these words and verbiage to kind of catch his certification as,well,if anything goes wrong I really didn't certify it that way. That really wasn't a very strong certification and that concerns me with relationship to that section of the code. And I'm saying that because I know you're going to have some rebuttal time and I thought maybe you could address that. And the last thing is,you are from Pinellas County. MS.WESTINE: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe you can explain to me then this one issue with Pinellas County that I seem to have. Under your Section 138-240,it talks about number 25 communication towers,item F. Towers shall be set back from residential property lines a distance equal to the height of the tower. That's your standard. MS.WESTINE: I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further on,under 138.1347,communication towers and antennas,you may know what I'm going to read,number two: Communication towers which are camouflaged to look like trees or palms which are common to the county may be erected in any zone,subject to a height limitation of 75 feet. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I know that's the county that you have operated in,and you're probably familiar with. Why is it we should be allowing it when the very county that you're in doesn't seem to? I mean,they specifically addressed camouflaged towers which we didn't even do. MS.WESTINE: Been doing this since 1999,never been asked that kind of question before,so I'm going to take a deep breath. And I'm going to look to your County Attorney to at some point tell me this is way outside of the criteria,but I guess I'm not going to get that help. Page 55 of 66 July 16,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We compare it to other counties constantly to look for ways of doing things,and wondering,the very county you are from and familiar with seems to be contradictory to what we're being asked here to do today,and I'm just wondering how we got there. Why is--how your county would have looked at it. I'm just-- MS.WESTINE: We have--I believe we have two 75-foot trees in Pinellas County. Other than that, everything else goes through the board of adjustment. The 75-foot trees are done as a building permit,candidly. It's done as a walk-through site plan. In this par--I don't know why your county wrote your code the way they did. So I'm going to start with that premise. In fact, I wasn't a part of even writing the Pinellas code,candidly. I work within it but I wasn't a part of writing it. Pinellas County has a--I like to say that I like to see jurisdictions that use both the carrot and the stick approach. In that particular case,building a 75-foot tree that meets the 100 percent residential separation or your district setbacks,if you're not surrounded by residential,is a carrot. It's a walk-through site plan,it's a four to six-week permit and you're done and you're up and you're in the air. Candidly I filed this site October 5th of 2013. This site's been going on for a long time. I don't know why your code--your county didn't do that. I can tell you that each site is individual. I'm on a planned unit development so no matter what I do,what I bring before you as a tower,I could bring you a 75-foot tower that meets all my separation distances and I'd still be in front of you asking you to add this to the PUD. There's nothing in your code that gives me a carrot. If I built 92 feet I would still be in front of you and I'd still be asking. I guess I don't--I don't know where you're going with your question,other than to say the reason Pinellas County does it is they have kind of a carrot and a stick approach,which is if you want to build bigger than 75 feet and you don't want to do camouflage,you have to go through the board of adjustment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern was only if there's a health,safety and welfare issue related to camouflage that we're not familiar with because we don't have--we haven't addressed it. Maybe another county that did might have addressed it. And since you're from that county,I thought you might know. MS.WESTINE: I think it's more of an aesthetics issue. I will tell you that we have--do we build pines up there? I think we've modified it so they do allow not just palms but they do allow pines now as well. I just did one recently. I want to say it's a pine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's the last question I had. So anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,we can go--do you want some time for rebuttal to-- MS.WESTINE: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --address your issues today,you're more than welcome to. MS.WESTINE: I do and I'll be somewhat brief. One is 1 heard your concerns about whether this is setting a precedent. And that was whether this doubling of the height was setting a precedent. And my respectful suggestion is,is one,every zoning site that comes before you,every PUD amendment,every Conditional Use that comes before you is based on its own unique facts. And so I would suggest to you that you're not setting a precedent when it comes to that. That's what I heard. I could have been wrong. There was some discussion about--I did want to point out that I did meet with the civic association after that letter came out.I'm not sure why I skipped through that in my notes,but I did reach out to them in trying to meet with them and see if I could answer any questions. That's something that's important to me. That's how my client does business and that's how I do business so I didn't want to leave that part out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they respond to you? MS.WESTINE: We did,we had a meeting at the park. We sat at the picnic table and their board met with me and I explained to them what our project was. And Mr.Estes was there. He act-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,slow down a little bit. MS.WESTINE: Okay. We talked about how each situation is unique and how this would not set a precedent. We talked Page 56 of 66 July 16, 2015 about how other jurisdictions handled these type-- THE COURT REPORTER: Slow down. MS. WESTINE: We've talked about how other jurisdictions handle these types of things. We talked about the height and how that the 75-foot height is not the maximum,that actually in fact provided you meet the setback you can go up to a max of 185. We talked about the trees. I'm going through my notes;bear with me,please. There was a bit of discussion about what if the trees blew down. And the only thing I would suggest to you is we don't zone on what ifs. We don't--we're talking a lot about the engineering and the structuralness(sic)of the--structuralness,I just made up a word--the structural analysis from the tower. All that,provided that this gets approved. And--but all that is taken into account at building permit time. That's something where these engineers put their numbers on the line,put their seals on the line and they say this is what we believe this is going to happen. And that's not unique to towers. That has to do with your traffic engineers that you said are before you quite a bit. So my suggestion is,is that there will be an additional review to review any of those concerns prior to going--or in the building permit process. The only other thing that I would--and I'm hoping I'm not missing anything,is that--the only other thing that I would suggest is one of the criteria within the rezone criteria and the PUD amendment criteria is what in the changing times have required this amendment.Or has--I'm sorry,has there been something that has changed in the times. And I would suggest to you that wireless is--when I started in this industry they were called car phones. They are now called wireless phones. The demand,I used to years ago in a presentation would say for teenagers.But the demand for wireless is simply a reality of life. I think that,and I'd said it earlier,that this is a balance,that we're asking you to balance what I consider to be the need for improved wireless. You've got 79 percent of your 9-1-1 calls that are coming from wireless phones;I think that's substantial. And I would ask that you take all that into account as you balance these types of applications. I'm going to look back and see if I have missed anything. I'm seeing no heads nodding,so with that we would respectful--I'm here for any questions you may have,but I would respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the Board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just one question for staff,or maybe the County Attorney. Is there anything in the Land Development Code or--that defines what creating a practical difficulty on an applicant would be? Is there anything specific that defines that in any way? MR.REISCHL: I believe that's subjective. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have another question,Lauralee. MS.WESTINE: I'm back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 92 feet would get you 80 percent instead of 93 percent at 150 feet. MS.WESTINE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From 92 to 150 is 58 more feet,which is over 50 percent of 92. I mean,it's a substantial amount just to get another,what is it, 11 percent? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 82 from 93. Oh,it's 80 from 93? Okay, 13 percent. I had heard in the previous rendition that the consideration of a neighborhood at one point from some people was 100 feet. Did you ever look and see where 100 feet would get you?Because if we've got--if our biological planner is right and we've got 80 to 90-foot trees out there,at 100 feet you're less noticeable from any kind of concerns the neighborhood would have. And I'm just wondering,did you look at that as a percentage of coverage improvement? MS.WESTINE: We didn't look at the--let me say this: I did take it back and ask specifically if there was a lower height that would be considered and I was told there was not,that this was the lowest that Page 57 of 66 July 16, 2015 they were willing to go. The reason I had 92 feet looked at,literally last night as I was driving down,was because that is what--is where we meet that setback,and I thought that you might have a question on that. That's why I had the 92 foot evaluated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason I thought it might be helpful to know that,is if you could pick up another few percent to get to 100 feet and that's a more,say,view--visually a better way to approach it, it might be a compromise to consider. But-- MS. WESTINE: I think the balance there is you have to ask yourself,do you want to lose the additional users. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The additional users aren't in this room asking for more cell towers. So,I mean--and all I can see,I have Verizon and I don't have any problem anywhere in the county. So I'm not sure the other users are in the same situation that you are. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You used to have problems. Now you don't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not with Verizon. No,it was when I had the county phone which was a Sprint. It was terrible. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, 10 years ago I couldn't even talk on the phone in my house,I had to go outside. But now I can go anywhere I want inside the house. And it's Verizon. I've always had the same,Alltel and Verizon. It's changed. Things have changed. There's more towers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you trying to tell me something? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I am. I don't understand what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying I don't see any other people here from any other vendors asking for an increase or more towers. I see one. And that's why the concern of having this tower drop in size that would eliminate other vendors, I don't see any other vendors in here seeking it. That's what my point was. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,would 130 feet get you what you wanted? Or 120? MS.WESTINE: And I say this respectfully. Without allowing Dan to go back and run plots,I will say this,92 feet,and I--92 feet at 80 percent,and I'm only saying in my experience of working for lots of tower companies and lots of carriers,my inclination is they simply wouldn't build that tower. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Why is that? That's the question. MS.WESTINE: Because--and I'm trying to put it as--you all--I realize that zoning and finance are two very separate things. But at the same time when a--not a jurisdiction,but when a region is only given X number of dollars to do their build-out,they are going to look at how fast can I be on air--how fast can I be on air,what's the most impact I can have. So if the question is,is I can impact 80--it can get 80 percent of,you know,basically fair coverage or over here I can get 90 something,they'll simply keep pushing this site off. I think you heard Dan testify that they've been looking in this area since the Nineties.Part of the reason that this site keeps getting passed over and pushed and pushed is because one,the process is a challenge. It's just a challenge. It's a long,expensive process.And for a long,expensive process you need something that's going to not still require you at the end of the day to build two more sites. And again,that has nothing to do with zoning,that's just money. So that's not-- MR. REISCHL: Mr.Chairman,if I can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.REISCHL: If I can give a perspective on that that I learned by working on this petition, SBA towers is,as I've learned,a vertical real estate company. So they are looking at it from a financial aspect. So by having AT&T on the top,that means they can put three other customers below that. And that's the perspective that is coming before you for the 150. Yes,it's great for AT&T but it also allows SBA to have three other people,therefore making it feasible for them to put the tower there. If it's less than that,and I don't want to speak for SBA but,you know,they're in it to make the money off the vertical real estate. MS. WESTINE: And let me follow up on that though. Page 58 of 66 July 16,2015 With that said,that's not--the testimony you've had before you today is that AT&T needs 145 ACLs as centerline to get I want to say 93 percent. That's the testimony that's here before you. And I'm going to be very practical. If this board says,you know what,at the end of the day we're not going to support 150 feet but we're going to say we're going to whack it down to 125,that's something where I walk away,I take whatever I get,I then get set for Board of County Commissioners and AT&T goes back and they run their props.I'm sorry,propagation studies. I can't commit to anything now. This isn't one of those things where I can say yes,I'll give you double the amount of trees on the eastern boundary line. But if that's something that you all say look,we're part of this community and that's where we think the height should be,we will take it back,do our homework and then we'll be back in front of the board either to say you know what,we went back and reviewed it and we're okay or to say here's why we really can't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Another thing that we really do look at is compatibility to the neighborhood. And I can see where the 92 feet,if our trees are 80,you know,to 100 feet tall,it fits in,it's very compatible to what is around it. But when you can knock off 58 feet,that's huge. And being this is--and I heard what Fred said. But you are still--you're right,you are still AT&T asking for AT&T. And I just--I feel that the 92 feet would give you what you need without the other people going in on it. MS.WESTINE: Then if,I say that only--if that's your inclination,then,well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a ways to go before you get a reading from this board. So I think that's one commissioner weighing in. We have all seven of us up here. So why don't you kind of let us get into discussion and we can see where we want to go. Lauralee,was that the last comment you wanted to make? MS. WESTINE: Yes. Yes,it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that,we will close the public hearing and we certainly can entertain either a motion or discussion,whatever this board's preference is at this point. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, I have a few comments that I'd like to share with the board. After hearing all of the facts presented before us today,I still have a question about the engineering of these cellphone towers and the coverage,because I know how challenging it might be to have existing towers and you need to get additional coverage and so you look for a location for yet another tower. But I'm not sure,at some point the engineers need to look at reducing the number of towers,getting them in the right position and with the new technologies enhancing the coverage. But that's just a commentary. Reference this petition,I commend the petitioner for wanting to improve cell service for the customers in this area. I also agree with Brian that the monopine is a good option to a cellphone tower and its wildlife friendliness regarding that. My concerns are the fact that I--I went and did a site visit,as I disclosed before the beginning of this petition--this hearing.And when I looked at the site,I questioned the location of where the tower would be, because I thought the northeast quadrant adjacent to Airport Pulling,if there was going to be a tower,might be a more beneficial location.But Lauralee was very candid in saying why that location was not being requested. But I think that location of the tower on the property is a concern because then because of the designated location being requested,they need four deviations. And it's almost as if we're sliding the tower to the back of the property so that the property itself doesn't have to experience the tower and then asking for deviations to get it closer within the setback. So I'm a little concerned about that. The height of the tower. I can understand the petitioner's position of wanting to get the biggest bang for the buck. If they're going to put up a tower and go through all the expense,they want it as high as it can be. But I also,like you Mr. Chairman,am concerned about maintaining consistency as we go forward. Because there may be other sites where that height as well would not be necessarily compatible. I think the residential separation is another concern for me,only because of where they're siting the tower on this property by pushing it all the way back to that rear property line. And I'm not so sure if it is a concern and we go ahead and approve the tower in some capacity today Page 59 of 66 July 16, 2015 if we couldn't add something to the PUD to address those concerns that some of the members had on this panel about the trees all blowing down in the hurricane,maybe adding something to the PUD that they be replanted or something like that. But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't from this panel,by the way. That comment was from the public speaker. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you for the correction. Those were my thoughts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,my main thing was the location on the property. Because you are correct,I felt it would be better where they have the most preserve,which would be on Airport and Bailey. That was--I had a big X there. It would be away from the residential. So I had Charlette's same concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My issue is,as I said,the consistency factor. But it all has to do with the height. We're actually being requested to go to a much larger height than would have normally been anticipated in such a zoning matter,at least such a zoning district. If there was a reduction in the height that still provided for an AT&T usage,I'd still be comfortable with that. But at the 150 feet,it's just higher than what I think is warranted. We've not seen any--I shouldn't say not seen any,we've not seen sufficient evidence to show that the lower heights have a generation of coverage that would be sufficient for AT&T at a lower height. We didn't see a study indicating the various parcels that were like this one,zoned through C-1,that could possibly be used for a tower location and what their availability was. I would like to have seen all that. And the colored maps we saw showing the triangles, the--I forgot the name of--the term, femto devices,and then the coverage improvements at the height of the tower,it would have been nice to see a series of those to understand gradationally how the improvements are placed on the property or seen across the area as the tower height increases. It would have given us something to understand the function of the tower better. Lacking that,I'm very concerned about the height of the tower. So anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,femto, 10 to the minus 15th,for those that care. I was here--I think it might have been Wilma,the storm that came through and knocked out everything for like a week. And after three days all the cell towers in Collier County kind of went down because they all were on batteries. And nobody could communicate. I've never owned a cell phone;I'm probably the only one up here. Nobody could communicate with anybody because the battery packs all ran down. And that's when the county decided hey,we should encourage people to put in generators with backup gasoline at all these cell towers.I think they started doing that. And then as things kind of wound down a little the county made it,you know,you've got to get this permit and that permit and they made it a little harder to put in generators. People tend to forget when these services go out how important they are,how critical they are. And, you know,even though I don't own a cell phone,I would not begrudge--I wouldn't want to think that anybody wanting to make a 9-1-1 call couldn't if all they have is a cell phone. I've seen Norfolk Island Pines in this town that I swear to God were 120 feet tall.And,you know, you see them on the skyline there. And they don't bother me. You know,they just stick up a little. It's no big deal. From my point of view,I'll never own a cell phone,no offense,but I don't have a problem with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think the Norwalk Pine is a--you can ride through Lakewood and see them. They were planted in the Seventies and Eighties and they're just--there's one right next to my house. And in a hurricane the branches break off and the top breaks off and they just keep growing after. They don't fall-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,all the ones-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --or die. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All the ones on the other coast,they lost-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They're huge. You can ride through and just look up and you can see them scattered through everywhere. Page 60 of 66 July 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And just on that aesthetic beauty point--I'm sorry,did I cut you off? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: In my neighborhood on Harbor and Riviera you can stand there and the sky is littered in various parts with pine trees that are obscure,bent and just--they could look weird,but they don't,it's just a tree. So I agree,it wouldn't obscure my skyline to have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,with that,we're looking for a motion. Does anybody on this panel wish to make a motion? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'll make the motion.I make a motion that we approve the PUDA-PL20120001128; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? MR.REISCHL: Would that include the reinstatement of the stormwater and environmental? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask that question. There were several criteria discussed. First one being the antennas must be hidden by the branches. Second one being no part of the antennas will expand outside the branches. The third one,the tower must be painted brown and green or the tower that--tower and the branches. The branches will start at 30 feet above the ground. And they will remove the strike-throughs that we discussed that weren't relevant to the tower application. That's one of the things that Fred was asking about. And those are the other standards we talked about that the applicant acknowledged as affirmative. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: With those standards approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,I think the applicant has done a good job in hiding an ugly tower. And I'm glad to see the picture. I think that was excellent. I am still concerned about the 150 tower height. If the motion maker would accept 120 feet as the height,which is a midpoint between the--it's about 30 feet more than what the percentage they got with 92 feet,and that would get them closer to the 90 percent they're looking for but yet it would be more compatible with the visual impact it would have,I would be able to support the motion. But at 150 feet I cannot. And that's strictly up to the motion maker. Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,as far as the 120,that's an arbitrary number. I personally think the 75 was always an arbitrary number. They just picked a number. I'm listening to some science saying 150 is the number. And,you know,at least there's a basis for that. But to go to,you know,another number just because it's a compromise,I don't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't the reason.The applicant said at 92 it was 80,at 93 it was 150. They needed to be closer to 90. This is a little bit closer to 90 which means they may do the tower. And if they lose a band because they can't put it on because they're 30 feet short,it doesn't bother me in the slightest. That's the only reason I was getting there, Stan. But that's fine,you guys can leave your motion like it is and we can vote on it,if that's how it's to be. So anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raise your hand. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three in favor. All those against,same sign. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One,two,three,four,five. Five against,three in favor--no,that's eight. Page 61 of 66 July 16, 2015 Four in favor. 4-3,the motion loses. And at that point unless someone wants to suggest anything else,that's the motion as we go to the Board of County Commission,a recommendation of denial at this point. Is there anybody that wants to consider an alternative to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that will end this meeting on this issue,and we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Are the reasons for denial then the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Heidi,for pointing that out. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got them. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: This had an EAC review too,didn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It did at first,it didn't at second. My reasons for denial are the following:That the 5.05.09(G)(5)limits the height to that which is necessary for its use at its location. And I don't feel that we've had sufficient testimony to justify the 150-foot height. 5.05.09(G)(7)(b)also calls for a certification of the tower's collapse area. I think the certification provided is ambiguous at best. The variance criteria A,the special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to this location,I don't think there were any.I think this is a site that could have been used at 75 feet. It was the applicant's preference due to financial and other concerns to get it up higher for whatever reasons that they've expressed today. This is a--this action has not been proven by the applicant not to be self-creating. They could have done 75 feet and not been here today,with the exception of the use application. But the height would have not been the issue. I don't believe that there's been a hardship proven. The--some of the diagrams that were provided, provided additional information but they were provided at the hearing today. We would have benefited from a series of such information ahead of time to better understand it. This would grant a special privilege.It's a higher elevation than what would be typically allowed. And that's most of it that I can think of at this point. So--anybody else-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --have any other reasons? Yes? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It does say in the staff report on Page 6 that it does require EAC review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that would--okay,well,we can vote as the EAC. But I thought that was changed from the first one to this one. But that's fine. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, I didn't get that change. MR.REISCHL: No,it's because of the removal of the distance from a preserve that requires the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry,I thought that was one that got changed. So we also will vote as the EAC as soon as we finish up with our reasons for denial. And those of you that denied,you can either,you know,agree with some of mine or have your own reasons,but we need you to state-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just add that from my perspective,you know,I wasn't presented with any evidence that would help me to conclude exactly what the practical difficulties were on the applicant. That's--there's service issues,whether it's 80 percent,90 percent. You know,that's all I would add. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,you're right. I believe compatibility is one of them. I also believe they can accomplish this through a lesser height and still meet all of their needs on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? Page 62 of 66 July 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,I said most of my reasons leading up to the motion but a couple I'll highlight would be compatibility with the surrounding area and by the siting of their requested tower in the back of the property inside the setback,the residential,the separation is also a factor regarding that. Also,from a consistency point of view going forward would be the height of the tower.But primarily it was the siting of the tower on the particular property by kicking it back inside the rear setback that was a major concern for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Heidi,I don't like to send something to the Board of County Commissioners without a recommendation one way or another. This particular one had a recommendation of approval that didn't get supported. Would it be clearer for the process to get a firm recommendation then of denial or an alternative recommendation to the previous one? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Since this wasn't a final decision here,it was just a recommendation,you can take another vote of denial to make the record clean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another vote of denial?We've already voted once and it was denied. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can make another motion and it can be voted either way. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's why I brought it up,because what I'd still like to suggest is we look at an alternative height.But if there's a--if that's the consideration of this board and even those on the positive side or the affirmative side of the last vote,it might be something that we can find enough support on to see this move forward with the stipulations and conditions that we've talked about. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Would a recommendation since two of our commissioners have spoken of the setback being a major factor in their decision,would we be able to make another motion proposing that with the setback we might find something to agree on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By a setback you're saying moving the tower to another location? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: On the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that's even an opportunity. Because I think it's clear that the applicant--or that the property owner wants to reserve that corner property for potential use there. That's what I've been told a couple different times. And if that's the case,by moving this up there it would kind of damage that possibility. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,see,that's I think what I understood Lauralee to answer my question when I asked it during the hearing was that that was the site that was given to them on that property. So I don't know that there's any flexibility there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,if there's no inclination from this panel to change the vote, then we can leave it as it is.I was still trying to salvage something out of it. MS.WESTINE: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes--well,we can't open the testimony back up,but if you've got a comment,we're willing to hear it. Just as long as it isn't something different than--I don't want to open up any new evidence. MS.WESTINE: You had mentioned that you would support 120-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. WESTINE: --and reducing the height.And I appreciate that. You had mentioned that there wasn't actually any engineering testimony. For obvious reasons I would much prefer to go before the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval and to send this back to the engineers,let them do their homework than I would go before them with a rec.of denial and me having a transcript trying to explain that I might have,could have,maybe could have had something of a recommendation of approval. This is--that's my only request is that I certainly from my client's perspective would welcome a recommendation of approval at 120 versus a denial at 150 when I--I'm hearing although maybe not supported by the engineering,hearing a compromise. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Would you settle for a continuance? And you can come Page 63 of 66 July 16, 2015 back with whatever information you can find. MS.WESTINE: We've been--with all due respect,we've been in this process since 2013. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,but another couple weeks? 2013. The death of 1,000 cuts. MS.WESTINE: What I would--candidly what I would prefer to do,if you all would be inclined to do it,is to go forward if I had the votes for 120,let them do their homework,let them do their math,let them run their props,and if the props simply don't work then I make my pitch to the Board of County Commissioners and explain why,adding in definitely some information that you all have pointed out that we didn't provide here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One thing I'd like to let you know is the BCC does not meet until September,so a continuance would not be a problem at this point. And it also to me is what you're kind of saying is the property owner is also putting constraints on you,not just this board. MS.WESTINE: Yeah. Well,yes,ma'am. I answered that candidly earlier. But I would--you know,obviously in protecting my client,both AT&T and SBA's interest,it is in their best interest to go before the Board of County Commissioners even in September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I doubt if you'll get on the September agenda when they first get back. MS.WESTINE: I think I'm already scheduled-- MR.REISCHL: It's scheduled for September 8th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which meeting,second or first? MR.REISCHL: First. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,really? So it's already been scheduled. Good. Because if you haven't been scheduled by now,it's real tough to get on their first agenda back. That's another reason why it would be nice if we resolved something to go forward,because that meeting's going to be very hectic for them in-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,I'll make a motion for 120 feet. Do I have to make a motion to reconsider first or just-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,because this isn't a final action. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Well,I'll make a motion to approve the 120 feet with all the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stipulations? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --stipulations,changes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Now is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I still have the same questions,but--so the motion's going to be that the height will be 120 feet as opposed to just 150 feet which was the original request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Seems to me it either meets the criteria for a variance or it doesn't,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,there's no--you're 100 percent right. I think,though,that some of the mitigating factors at 120 feet both visually help and it's a little more consistent with the standard instead of going double in the standard. That's how I'm viewing it at least. I think doubling the standard is a real hard precedent to set. We're a little bit taller here,it fits more in what we've heard on your testimony for the vegetation in the area. It will not stand out nearly as much as a 150-foot tower or pole or artificial tree. So from my perspective I'm more--I think that's a doable compromise. But that's why I'm suggesting it. And I'm not saying everybody has to buy into it,that's just my thought. Anybody else want to comment on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so the motion's been made and seconded to go to 120 feet with the previous stipulations. We'll do it by both voice and hand sign. Page 64 of 66 July 16, 2015 All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two,three,four in favor. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three opposed. Motion carries 4-3. Lauralee,that will not leave you on a consent agenda for the Board,but you do have an affirmative vote going forward at 120 feet. MR.REISCHL: There was already opposition so it's not on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then as far as the EAC vote,does anybody want to make a motion--now is the EAC's criteria different than ours? It's strictly the preserve issues from the EAC perspective. Anybody want to make a motion to vote as the EAC as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,I'll make a motion that we approve PL-20120001128 Wilson Professional Center PUD as the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That motion carries 7-0. Okay,thank you all for your attendance on that matter today,we appreciate your time. ***Next item up is old business. Does anybody have any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***There's no new business scheduled. ***Is there any members of the public that wish to speak at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nobody practically left here. So with that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Diane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. Page 65 of 66 July 16,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're out of here. ************************ There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,Inc., by Cherie'R.Nottingham. Page 66 of 66 Patricia L. Morgan From: Puig, Judy Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 11:20 AM To: Andrew Solis (asolis @cohenlaw.com); Chrzanowski, Stan; Ebert, Diane; Doyle, Brian; Homiak, Karen; Roman, Charlette; Strain, Mark; Thomas Eastman; Bellows, Ray; Bosi, Michael; French, James; Marcella, Jeanne; WilkisonDavid; AndersonRichard; Anthony, David; Blair Foley (Fols000 @aol.com); BrownAraque, Summer; Cromer, Aaron; Kinaszczuk, Danette; Lantz, Lorraine; Lenberger, Steve; Minutes and Records; rsinger @naplesgov.com; Scott, Trinity; VanLengen, Kris Subject: FW: East Gateway PUD Good morning everyone, Please see the email below to continue Agenda Item 9A "East Gateway MPUD" to the 9/17 meeting. From: ReischlFred Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:58 AM To: Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich @cyklawfirm.com> Cc: StrainMark<MarkStrain @colliergov.net>; David Genson <DGenson @barroncollier.com>; 'warnold @gradyminor.com' <warnold @gradyminor.com>; 'Tim Hall' (Tim @turrell-associates.com) <Tim @turrell- associates.com>; PuigJudy<JudyPuig @colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows @colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi @colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer<SummerBrownAraque @ colliergov.net> Subject: RE: East Gateway PUD Thanks. Judy—would you please forward this to the Planning Commissioners?—Thanks! From: Richard Yovanovich [mailto:ryovanovich@acyklawfirm.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:56 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: StrainMark; David Genson; 'warnold @gradyminor.com'; 'Tim Hall' (Tim @turrell-associates.com) Subject: East Gateway PUD Fred We are requesting a continuance of the CCPC hearing to the second meeting in September. We would like to meet with staff and try to address staff comments. Please call if you have any questions. Thank-you. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 (239) 435-3535 x 256 (239) 435-1218 (f) COLEMAN YOVANOVICH KOESTER ATTENTION: This email message, including all attachments, is private and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use, disclose, copy, or disseminate this information. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message. Under Flonda 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 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 20, 2015 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20140000548: EAST GATEWAY MPUD PROPERTY OWNER,APPLICANT &AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agents: BC Naples Investments,LLP Richard D.Yovanovich,Esq. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. Naples, FL 34105 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Q. Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The East Gateway Planned Unit Development (PUD) currently permits commercial and industrial/business park uses. The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to Ordinance Number 03-11 to permit a maximum of 250 residential dwelling units to the PUD in the commercial Development Area or as an alternative in the Industrial/Business Park Development Area, creating a Mixed Use PUD (MPUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 37.35±acres in size and is located south of Interstate 75, north of Davis Boulevard, east of the Saddlebrook Village PUD and west of I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD. The site is accessed from Davis Boulevard and is within the boundaries of Activity Center Number 9. The site is currently undeveloped. (See location map on the following page.) PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The East Gateway PUD was approved on February 25, 2003 as a mixed use project with a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses and a East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 1 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC (iss •r3) aavnr7noe 83171o0 "'v _ n (lee V7) WIYA7YNB YlTIe7 o ,_ ,_ .0 0 g . . h 1 emm OR. a a - " R i UI r 1 R aA G : y :sa ' rs . ' iinli i;'€i€ €�iii ii€ii is€iii€i= i':: . 1 V'' Isiiiii ' ii iiii1i1`ss:a s: 1':i;[;p iiii I;;pI; ?ij;ipt:: ;s i :: I l`i iiiiii s:s: € :::::::[: €:[:: sssiss:s:s:€: s;si:€ssiss sss::.;._ I Z i q Kum SMUT o 0 r, : Q 11:111 IOW -- - Min .d- _ 1 (----)I • " I 1111L-1- 1 MIMI : 'g III w -- . - MIN 'i --\ s • -� 1 N OM SOMA rrna wc a J nvx a Ian 0 a it 0 0 t k R -. 4 O 4K ! " — < :0Z 1 o. :17-z / n Q C kF gp a 6 8 atroGinoe wino:, (Ise vol ,�_ a�, „�_ (� a IRS R Itw v�l F- yn gg 3 a U M , _. b I Li, g rw iffingiL' ' 1: r i 1 11 i 0 3l;1 `� ,� q Hi I �y � ` 11111 I > fi 1 it 11 la II ; �evIN„ Og 011VAMOO 4%, � L amain w veveiove v ov - -- — tz a I i / :x - I I n RPM --Ill 1 ii maximum of 250,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for industrial uses. The proposed amendment would add a maximum of 250 dwelling units an d residential development standards along with five deviations. The resulting project may be a mix of commercial and industrial, commercial and residential, or all residential. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Interstate 75 ROW, across which is the undeveloped Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD; density: 10 DU/A. East: The partially developed I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD; a maximum of 265,000 square feet of commercial. South: Davis Boulevard ROW; across which is the partially developed Westport Commerce Center MPUD; a maximum of 350,000 square feet of commercial and 218,000 square feet of industrial. West: Multifamily residences; zoned Saddlebrook Village PUD; density: 12.99. ' .. , 1 -- t P.i .;i.i 4. , . r„,.., ,,,.. . . 1.1t4 rY{-�71tt .f w r � °war � �.N- . ., : ., r * t u b i ec f J'. '! 1 , ' 's . om, °r j, 1 . b r K 4:,1 t,4 ,of ' : CL ril:. ./ Qt., I I 1g, _ A 1 .f77.;:-. _� I�a . 111. (x t i .6{Ye o t i - -r• 1 �* -'� —t .,,tom r ► . am �,' 1 l {7 i ( .n"(. } �{44- • , •1 � ," Aerial Photo(CCPA) East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 3 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC I ' I.��' t H 11 n a'� ■u m `ii i:1 us. I ► IIIIII1 l; �sw / °i �i pier it 1 t 1 f 1 1 I.[l Mt CM lit ‘,,,„,,,...,Nit COLAII lg Wag NM k - . .,--1- ,...\,„,,,. .., ,,-; , A PUD �M�� GOMM WIIYI —, r. 1 � A r P fr .../12,...... 1 I I J iffiula F` i la:. Sinai.,fie. ' .1m Oft. , ° � ...:..... 1A � 014, MIN I 1Cm I ■EE)E1 ' hi� lrrti�i '"'""""'!x.1"'"11... °i 1 .A j -- .. 1 - , .. , ..,. NNI 1 RALff.p T ` 'U�4' ` ' 1 \ ..., PUD Alir L ROOT an a 10611•61` r a ` '-'i, PA l R....c 1 - F1 Y i VI 11110 7.4 IMII�►r t 1r gig It 1 i � � ate . ii 111' (Activity Center Number 9—East Gateway MPUD Highlighted in Red) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: The East Gateway PUD was determined to be consistent with the GMP at the time of the original rezone. Staff reviewed the proposed amendment to determine if the petition can be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Relevant to this petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types) at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), including associated accessory uses; and, commercial uses as allowed in the C-1 through C-5 zoning districts. Industrial and business park (a mix of commercial and East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 4 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC industrial uses) uses were formerly allowed in this quadrant of this Interchange Activity Center but are no longer allowed. Eligible density and uses are not entitlements. The existing East Gateway PUD allows commercial, business park and industrial uses. When this PUD was approved in 2003, the FLUE allowed all three use categories in this quadrant of the Interchange Activity Center but now no longer allows industrial and business park uses in this quadrant. The proposed PUD retains all of the existing uses — staff interprets the industrial uses as being consistent with the FLUE via FLUE Policy 5.1, similar to FLUE Policies 5.12 and 5.13 —and adds residential uses at a maximum density of 6.69 DU/A(250 DUs). The FLUE provides that: The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project, or portion thereof, within an Activity Center, are as follows: (each factor is followed by staff comment/analysis in [bold text]) a. Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. [This is a PUD and comprises 37.35 acres.] b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses.] i c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses.] j d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses.] e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. [Comprehensive Planning defers this analysis and determination to the respective appropriate staff, e.g. Transportation Planning,Public Utilities,etc.] f. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses. However, residential uses are added which may potentially be incompatible with commercial uses approved in the I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to the east; proposed setbacks in this PUDA for residential uses do not include greater separation requirements from abutting commercial development and the abutting CPUD does not include greater separation requirements when abutting residential development.] g. Natural or man-made constraints. [The only known natural constraint is a required preserve area—but this is true of all naturally vegetated sites.] East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 5 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning , defers this analysis and determination to Zoning Services staff. See Analysis: Zoning Review] 3 i. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning defers this analysis and determination to Transportation Planning staff. See Analysis: Transportation Review] j. Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. [Comprehensive Planning defers this analysis and determination to Transportation Planning staff. See Analysis: Transportation Review] k. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. [An interconnection to the 1-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to the east is depicted on Exhibit A,PUD Master Plan. The Saddlebrook Village PUD to the west is fully developed.] 1. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. [This LDC requirement is applicable except as provided for in PUD Section 4.4J.] Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses." Comprehensive Planning generally defers this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes this PUDA proposes to add residential uses on the C, Commercial, tract - which allows some high intensity uses generally deemed incompatible with residential development - but there is no provision to only develop all residential or all commercial uses on the C tract, rather a mix of residential and nonresidential uses would be allowed on the C tract without restriction. (Activity Centers allow a variety of land uses including C-1 through C-5 commercial uses and residential uses; however, this doesn't mean all such uses would be compatible with one another. Typically, mixed use development is limited to C-1, C-2 and some C-3 commercial uses.) Also, the proposed residential uses may potentially be incompatible with commercial uses approved in the I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to the east; proposed setbacks in this PUDA for residential uses do not include greater separation requirements from abutting commercial development and the abutting CPUD does not include greater separation requirements when abutting residential development. And, in the I/B/R tract, it appears that IB development is only required to provide a greater setback, and is only limited to a lesser building height, when abutting residential development external to this PUD — rather than also from residential development on the C/R tract within this PUD. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 6 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new develo p ment and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Davis Blvd., classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [As Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, only depicts one access to Davis Blvd., access to all parcels within the PUD would have to be by internal road(s).] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [This PUD fronts on Davis Blvd. and backs up to 1-75. To the west are two developed residential projects and a preserve area (within Saddlebrook Village PUD). An interconnection to the commercial PUP to the east(1-75/Alligator Alley PUD)is depicted on the PUD Master Plan and remains unchanged by this PUDA.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This PUDA proposes to add residential use (variety of DU types), as well as accessory recreational uses, on both the C and I/B tracts. The proposed Commercial/Residential Development Area tract could develop with all residential uses or all non-residential uses or a mix of commercial/residential uses. The proposed Industrial/Business Park or Residential Development Area tract could develop with all non-residential uses or all residential uses but does not allow mixed use. The PUDA includes no on-site preserve area but does include a ±2.5-acre recreated wetland. As to walkable communities, the PUDA provides for sidewalks on both sides of streets if developed with non-residential uses or mixed use (Exhibit C, cross-section for non-residential and mixed use,depicts sidewalks on both sides of street; Deviation #3 provides for sidewalks on only one side but references cross section Exhibits B and C,and a 4/7/15 conversation with agent confirms sidewalks are to be provided on both sides of street for non-residential and mixed use). However,Exhibit 1 B and Deviation #3 provide for sidewalks on only one side of street for residential uses. This PUDA would allow up to 250 DUs, and the PUD is located within an Activity Center 4 proximate to extensive commercial development that offers shopping/service opportunities and potential employment; staff continues to advocate for sidewalks on both sides of street for residential development.] East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 7 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 3 PUD Document Review: 1. Section 2.13.3: Staff supports deletion of this sidewalk deviation — and corresponding modification of Exhibit B to depict sidewalks on both sides of street, [It is acknowledged the petitioner disagrees with staff and that the hearing bodies will arbitrate this issue.] 2. Section III: For mixed use development, Staff recommends limiting commercial uses to those permitted uses in Sec. 3.3 that are permitted in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. 3. Sections III and IV: For residential only development, consider providing greater separation requirements from non-residential uses within this PUD and in the abutting I- 75/Alligator Alley CPUD. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. However, staff requests PUD revisions as noted above. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: Transportation Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found it consistent with the Transportation Element. However, Transportation-Pathways Staff find that the Justification provided for Deviation 3 is insufficient and recommends that the Deviation is not approved. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME because of the size of the preserve to be provided. Specifically,this can be found consistent as a deviation may be requested in accordance with Policy 6.1.1 (13) as discussed below. However, staff does not support the requested deviation as a matter of policy. A minimum of 7.72 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD Amendment. The applicant is requesting all of the 7.72 acres of required native vegetation(preserve)be satisfied off-site through a deviation. For properties with a preserve requirement of less than one acre, a property owner may request that the onsite preserve requirement be satisfied off site if the total onsite preserve requirement is less than two acres (LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f). Deviations from this LDC provision may be requested through the PUD rezone process. The applicable GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME)Policies are provided below. CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10)The County shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4) than the land being impacted, or other appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to purchase and manage native vegetative communities off-site. The land development regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions: a. The amount, type, rarity and quality of the native vegetation on site; b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site; c. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State agency technical assistance; d. The type of land use proposed, such as, but not limited to, affordable housing; East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 8 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functional;and f Right of Way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition area. The land development regulations shall include a methodology to establish the monetary value, land donation, or other appropriate method of compensation to ensure that native vegetative communities not preserved on-site will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site. CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13) The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements of sub-sections 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 of this Policy, and shall adopt land development regulations to set forth the process for obtaining a deviation. The regulations shall allow for the granting of a deviation by the appropriate review board after a public hearing, and for the granting of a deviation administratively. The County shall consider the amount and type of native vegetation and the presence of listed species in determining whether the granting of a deviation requires a public hearing, or may be granted administratively. The County may grant a deviation if: a. County, Federal or State agencies require that site improvements be located in areas which result in an inability to meet the provisions of this Policy, or b. On or off-site environmental conditions are such that the application of one or more provisions of this Policy is not possible or will result in a preserve area of lesser quality, or c. The strict adherence to these provisions will not allow for the implementation of other Plan policies that encourage beneficial land uses. GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13) was adopted by Ord. 07-16 on 1-25-07, based upon the 2004 EAR. Staff who worked on the 2004 EAR based GMP amendments believe the "beneficial land uses" language allows latitude in application/interpretation, and that such uses might include uses such as affordable housing, essential services, Research &Technology Parks, business parks, and other uses that the BCC determines at the time to be beneficial (a/k/a desired/needed/wanted). Previous requests for other projects/properties for deviations from the criteria in the LDC for offsite retention of native vegetation have occurred through the PUD rezone and GMP amendment process, and have been for sites/preserves heavily impacted with exotic vegetation with no adjoining offsite preserves or undeveloped areas. Since they were very close to the offsite provisions contained in the LDC,their requests were supported by staff. Off-site retention of native vegetation for preserves greater than one acre, or two acres for properties zoned commercial, does not meet the offsite preserve criteria in the LDC, developed through stakeholders. On site preserves are beneficial land uses valued by the community and staff recommends not amending the PUD to allow for such a larger deviation. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and 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 East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 9 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 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 Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The property owner is requesting to allow 7.72 acres of preserve to be satisfied off site. Pursuant to Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the project requires review by the Environmental Advisory Council - (EAC)since a deviation to environmental standards of the LDC is being requested. ' PUD History and proposed PUD Amendment The existing PUD includes a 9.34 acre preserve (25% of 37.35 acres) as the entire site was considered native vegetation at the time of the original 2003-11 PUD ordinance. The site has not yet been developed and is still fully vegetated. The Review 1 submittal by the applicant for the PUD amendment proposed reducing the native vegetation onsite from 37.35 to 11.53 acres to result in a 2.88 preserve requirement. Several Collier County environmental staff visited the site to ascertain the amount of native vegetation that currently exists on site and determined that over 30 acres of the site qualifies as native vegetation. Therefore, at the Review 2 submittal, the applicant acquiesced and adjusted the native vegetation existing on site to 30.87 acres, resulting in a proposed reduction of the existing PUD preserve from 9.34 to 7.72 acres for the PUDA. In addition, the applicant requested a deviation at this submittal to take 4.92 of the 7.72 acres off- site. The Review 3 submittal revised the deviation to request the entire 7.72 acres be satisfied off-site. Please note that the 2.5 acre SFWMD created preserve shown on the master plan and as stated in section 2.11 of the PUD document, is a re-created preserve intended to meet requirements of other review agencies and is not credited toward Collier County native vegetation preservation requirements. Deviation #4 is being sought from LDC section 3.05.07.H.1.f. to allow the entire 7.72 acre preserve to be satisfied off-site. Staff does not support the request for deviation for the following reasons: • The size of the deviation is unprecedented - the difference between the one acre in the LDC and 7.72 acres being requested to be taken offsite. The applicant is requesting the deviation to 3.05.07.H.1.fi (d), which allows for certain preserves less than one acre in size to be satisfied offsite. To date,the largest deviation approved was to allow for a 1.36 acre preserve to be taken offsite for a residential PUD. Therefore, the deviation was for 0.36 acres above the one acre allowed by the LDC. • The preserve shown on the existing approved PUD (9.34 acres)connects to two preserves to the adjacent residential development to the west and provides a buffer. Further, there is also a third connection to the mitigation area on the east side of the property. Therefore,the existing preserve is viable and functional. Staff does not agree with the justification provided by the applicant. The following is the applicant's justification followed by staff's response in italics and why staff will not be supporting the deviation request: East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 10 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC • The applicant is stating that"more than 50%of the site acreage is exotic infested." The Native Vegetation (LDC 3.05.07A.1.) existing on site shows 30,87 acres of native canopy coverage in the 37.35 acre site as indicated in PUD section 2.11 and as shown on the Native Habitat Map provided by the environmental consultant (Environmental Supplement). As part of the deviation request, the applicant is actually challenging how the LDC defines native vegetation because there is exotic vegetation in the understory. Challenging a definition in the LDC is not justification,for a deviation. • The applicant states "no listed species have been identified on the property." The 7.72 acre preserve provides an area for movement,for non-listed species. • The applicant states "the property is located in an Interchange Activity Center, which permit a wide range of land uses including intensive industrial uses including manufacturing, warehousing and distribution." The primary reason for this PUDA is to add a residential component. Residential development has higher preservation standards and regulations have remained in place to keep preserves related to residential developments. In addition, due to the size of the preserve, a functional and viable preserve can exist in an Interchange Activity Center especially when it adjoins other preserves. One of the key issues being decided with this deviation is whether urban preserves provide value and if the decision-makers would like to continue to see preserves above one acre remain within the urban area. When the off-site vegetation retention section was added to the LDC in 2010, the stakeholders included the LDC criteria that smaller preserves, less than one acre, can be satisfied offsite. A deviation as large as being requested was not contemplated. It is staff's position that the request for such a large deviation should not be granted. It is staff's recommendation that applicant provide a proposal to include a majority of the required preserve onsite. Stipulations: • In the event that all or some of the preserve is allowed to be satisfied offsite,the applicant has advised they are donating land to another government agency other than Collier County. Staff stipulates that the land being donated cannot be used for mitigation to other agencies. Transportation Review: Transportation Staff reviewed the PUD and found the Level of Service acceptable. However, Transportation Staff recommends that Deviation 2 is not approved. Zoning Review: The Applicant wishes to add residential density to the existing PUD — 250 dwelling units, 6.69 dwelling units per acre — and dimensional standards for those units. The subject site is within an Interchange Activity Center (Number 9) and is therefore entitled to request up to 16 dwelling units per acre. Staff supports the addition of the residences. The GMP provides Interchange Activity Centers as places for relatively high-density residential. Staff, however, cannot support two of the requested deviations. Please refer to the Deviation Discussion on page 15. In addition, Staff has concerns about internal compatibility if the project develops as a mix of residential and commercial/industrial and external compatibility if residential is developed abutting the I-75 Alligator Alley CPUD. East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 11 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC FINDINGS OF FACT: 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 proposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of a residential component is a good use of a PUD within an Interchange Activity Center. The addition 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 residential component 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 proposed change is the addition of a residential component. Staff believes that with the approval of this amendment there may be compatibility issues between the proposed residential component and the internal and external non-residential uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Applicant proposes to relocate the Preserve off site which will greatly reduce the native vegetation on site. Despite this, open space requirements shall be met and calculations will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. ti 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 12 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC g it improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is Staff's opinion that the addition of a residential component 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 current PUD was found consistent with the GMP and compatible with the neighborhood. The addition of a residential component is consistent in an Interchange - Activity Center, however Staff recommends greater separation between the proposed residential uses and interior and exterior non-residential uses to increase compatibility. 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 five proposed deviations supported by Staff, and seeks to meet a desired purpose of providing a residential component in an Interchange Activity Center. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. 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. High density residential is consistent with an Interchange Activity Center. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; 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. 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. East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 13 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 1 The Applicant believes that this location is appropriate for residential units in addition to the approved Commercial and Industrial units. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The Saddlebrook PUD to the west is residential. The addition of a residential component to the subject PUD may be a more compatible use. 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. Transportation Staff reviewed the PUP and found the Level of Service acceptable. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The PUD will be required to meet South Florida Water Management District standards and therefore,will not create a drainage issue. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; The site planning process, PUD dimensional standards and LDC requirements will ensure that light and air circulation are not seriously affected. 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 East Gateway PUD is existing, the proposed amendment should not 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; East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 14 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing land-uses; 1 however, the petitioner believes that the addition of a residential component to the currently permitted uses will be consistent with an Interchange Activity Center. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The subject PUD 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 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. There are other parcels in the County suitable for residential uses. However, an Interchange Activity Center is deemed to be a place for high-density residential. 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 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. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of five 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: East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 15 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 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 5.06.04.F.9 On-Premises Directional Signs. Petitioner's Rationale: The Applicant wishes to have additional and larger non-residential signs at the interconnection with the I-75 Alligator Alley CPUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff has no objection to this deviation for directing drivers from a commercial tract in one PUD to a commercial tract in an abutting PUD. Deviation 2 — A Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards. Petitioner's Rationale: The LDC establishes 60-feet as the width of a local road. The applicant wishes to reduce that width to 54 feet(non-residential) and 40 feet(residential). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: This deviation is common in PUDs and Preliminary Subdivision Plats. Staff has no objection to the deviation, except for a possible interaction with Deviation 3. Deviation 3 — A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements Petitioner's Rationale: The Applicant believes it will be adequate to construct sidewalks on only one side of residential streets. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends that this Deviation is not approved,based on Board action on a similar Deviation. Deviation 4—A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(d)Preservation Standards Petitioner's Rationale: —The Applicant wishes to increase the size of the off-site Preserve to 7.72 acres over the existing maximum of 1 acre. The Applicant states that the quality of the vegetation is not high and that the area is infested with exotic vegetation by over 50 percent. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The large acreage difference between the one acre maximum in the LDC and 7.72 acres being requested to be taken offsite is one reason that Staff recommends that this Deviation is not approved. A second reason is that Staff believes that the on-site 7.72-acre preserve should be contiguous with the abutting East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 16 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 1 preserve in the Saddlebrook Village PUD, forming a larger habitat area. (Please see additional discussion on page 10.) Deviation 5 — A deviation from LDC Section 4.02.04.D Standards for Cluster Residential Design Petitioner's Rationale: The Applicant wishes to have the option to construct zero lot line homes with windows on the zero lot line side. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: As long as the 10-foot building separation is maintained, Staff has no objection to this Deviation. 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 requirement. The environmental review is provided on page 10 of this Staff Report. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): A NIM was held on October 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM at the SpringHill Suites on White Lake Boulevard.No members of the public attended. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed this Staff Report on August 6, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Unless Deviation 3 and Deviation 4 are removed, Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20140000548 to the BCC with a recommendation of denial. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Application& Support Material East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 17 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 3 PREPARED BY: ir. F' 'sr' ISCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYM r S, D 7. :ELL il. S,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONIN DIVISION , : P 5 -i r MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION ,AoPpROVED BY: / _,A..-./ ‘:. 17/. /[. \- t ,------/ v:(0,- e (-7 A JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE CIW,OWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT z) DAVID S. WILKISON, P. . DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the September 22,2015 BCC Meeting East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 18 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 4! }ii a.. v111!bCt I#+# i/""�1�rdy "T_ x111 .-_ it �+` _ .Sl� + =anmq: RSF-3' Loving; E . Golden;Gate.° _ t " ^< `i Commerce Pa�'!k ° �. 4 ©Bnsi o 7:0' _ Zon;n9: .G .. -mot r.�j Zonrng: PUD, " -- i glYA Mt ed tis. 01,:' onm.rs.TR. ? 1,1 ° Project Location: 1 EIH'Prita k 1/' .1 Zoning: s i RSF�a' "t ' East Gateway MPUD t.,..,„,,,,- . • ,.......000001111sL \\.- , . �''' Sa abrook. ° ,�, A,btl a: Density,12.99 _ t — 1-75/AlligatoP Alte Zoning: 1 1 $Tat u Immo�f n x Davis,BLVD ..rte '.o aI * Zoninc�:,Pl1D 1 t* i RMF-12 10 4775/Collier BIvd /` ,. ' le't Cbmm.Cente ' , ; ,.,"*.4.7.1.:.• ,t, _.-t,_ ACt..,. 4:---0. ..,:_q„,,,„,„,,,,,,,.............. .. : 1' ' :,°"i':.:''''' .[ z 7'''', 1,, ,',I n -*.".!4' 0*. Zoning: MPUD 0 A > ; Forest G enn of I ' f -:Dort"Commerce Centeral ,\ Densityx1 u •, lr m I - ), Zoning: v '` 5_1'-'' %.-„,--,,--".�� I 0 006 01 s GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) °.z °.3 Miles N FOR EAST GATEWAY MPUD AND (y� ac antY Growe7 Ma.99.7 n D:',1,. ent SURROUNDING PROPERTIES www.sunbiz.org - Department of State Page 1 of 2 I' C)RIDA DEPARTMENT OF SiA'IF f�� Divl ltl ' W CoKPuK_1l IO\ 5 wtop.tz Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Document Searches Forms Help Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filing History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Detail Partnership Name Search Limited Liability Partnership Name Submit BC NAPLES INVESTMENTS, LLP Principal Address 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES,FL 34105 Change Date: NONE Filing Information Document Number LLP010000601 FEI/EIN Number 593708049 File Date 03/22/2001 State FL Total Pages 17 Pages in Original Filing 2 Florida Partners 2 Total Partners 2 Status ACTIVE Effective Date NONE Expiration Date NONE Name History NONE Registered Agent BAIRD DOUGLAS E 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 Document Images 04/21/2009-- LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/29/2015--LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/28/2014--LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 03/21/2013--LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 02/21/2012--LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 05/02/2011 --LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/06/2010—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format LLP009000250—No Image available 09/04/2008--Amendment http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/gendet.exe?action=DETGENINAME&web di... 8/3/2015 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State Page 2 of 2 View image in PDF format 04/01/2008--UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/10/2007—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/12/2006—UNIFORM BUS REP View Image in PDF format 04/18/2005--UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/08/2004--UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/06/2003—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/03/2002—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filing History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Name Search Submit Home I Contact us I Document Searches i E-Fllinq Services I Forms I Help I Copyright@ and Privacy Policies State of Florida,Department of State http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/gendet.exe?action=DETGENINAME&web di... 8/3/2015 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State Page 1 of 2 N FLORIDA DEPARIMEN'1' o STATE ya:# _ - Div]sio 01 C0RPOR 11'1O S ;rinr;t .; P-* Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Document Searches Forms Help Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filing History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Detail Partnership Name Search Limited Liability Partnership Name Submit MC NAPLES INVESTMENTS LLP Principal Address 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 Change Date: NONE Filing Information Document Number LLP010000575 FEI/EIN Number 593708533 File Date 03/21/2001 State FL Total Pages 17 Pages in Original Filing 2 Florida Partners 2 Total Partners 2 Status ACTIVE Effective Date NONE Expiration Date NONE Name History NONE Registered Agent BAIRD DOUGLAS E 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 Document Images 03/21/2001 --LLP View image in PDF format 04/29/2015--LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/28/2014—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 03/21/2013—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 02/29/2012--LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/29/2011 --LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/06/2010--LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 05/13/2009—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format http://www.sunb iz.org/scripts/gendet.exe?action=DETGENINAIVIE&web_di... 8/3/2015 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State Page 2 of 2 09/03/2008—Amendment View image in PDF format 04/01/2008--UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/10/2007—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/12/2006—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/18/2005—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/28/2004—UNIFORM BUS REP I View image in PDF format 05/06/2003—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/03/2002--UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filina History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Name Search Submit I Home I Contact us I Document Searches I E-Filing Services I Forms I Help I Copyright©and Privacy Policieg State of Florida, Department of State http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/gendet.exe?action=DETGENINAME&web di... 8/3/2015 1 f 1 i ORDINANCE NO. 15- i AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2003-11, THE EAST GATEWAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY ADDING 250 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED IN ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE i COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT ON THE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT AREA; BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST GATEWAY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING PERMITTED USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS; BY REVISING THE MASTER PLAN; BY ADDING EXHIBIT B AND EXHIBIT C, A ROAD t RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION; BY REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS FOR THE PUD LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND WEST OF CR 951 IN SECTION 34, 1 TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 37.5* ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION PUDA-PL20140000548] 1 WHEREAS,D. Wayne Arnold,AICP of Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A.and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing BC Naples Investments,LLC,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD. i i , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: Amendments to the PUD Document, Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 2003- 11. i The East Gateway PUD Document, Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 2003-11, is hereby amended and replaced with Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1 SECTION TWO: Effective Date. 0 i This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. ., i PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of ,2015. 3 1 i ; 1 [14-CPS-01350/1196762/71 s East Gateway PUD\PUDA-PL20140000548 1 of 2 Rev. 7/17/15 I 1 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: 0 ,;\■-) Heidi Ashton-Cicko \t Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—East Gateway PUD Document [14-CPS-01350/1196762/I] [14-CPS-01350/1196762/71 East Gateway PUDIPUDA-PL20140000548 2 of 2 Rev. 7/17/15 EAST GATEWAY A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING EAST GATEWAY, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: THOMAS G.ECKERTY, TRUSTEE 175 EXIT ISLAND TRUST 12734 KENWOOD LANE. STE. 89 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33907 5638 BC NAPLES INVESTMENTS, LLP 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES,FL 34105 PREPARED BY: RWA CONSULTING. INC. . . . • . . • - c ' - SUITE 270 NAPLES, FLORIDA 31104 Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC 2/6/03 DATE APPROVED BY BCC 2/25/03 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2003-11 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL Exhibit"A" Words 6,U.Nelk-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits and Tables Statement of Compliance ii Section I Legal Description,Property Ownership and General Description I-1 Section II Project Development II-1 Section III Commercial/Residential Area-Development Area Standards III-1 Section IV IndustrialBusiness Park or Residential Development Area Standards IV-1 Section V Development Commitments V-1 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A BMPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B 40' ROW CROSS-SECTION EXHIBIT C 54' ROW CROSS-SECTION TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACT Words tnie gh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 37.49-35 acres of property in Collier County as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development to be known as East Gateway will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The residential, commercial, and industrial\business park land uses of the East Gateway MPUD are consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: 1. The subject property proposed for development is within the Urban Commercial District/Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as provided for in Objective 1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. 2. The subject property is located in Activity Center#9. The land uses, and land use intensities proposed are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Residential projects are eligible to request up to 16 dwelling units per acre. 3. Development of the East GatewayBMPUD shall be consistent with the Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan. 4. The subject property is located on the southwest quadrant of the I-75/Emit-13Davis Boulevard Interchange. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial and industrial/business park activities, or higher density residential development. 5. The project is a mixed-use development located within a designated Activity Center, therefore, the proposed residential, commercial, and industrial/business park land uses are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. development will be compatible with and complementary to existing and planned surrounding land uses. 476. &7. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 9=8. The East Gateway 1 U1 MPUD is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. -1-079. All final Development Orders within the East Gateway IBMPUD are subject to the Collier County Concurrency Management System, as implemented by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. ii Words struck-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE 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 the East Gateway P-644MPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - • - • e * - - • s. • - . _ I 75, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49, SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER e '` - ! • ! ` HE SOUTH 50 FEET THEREOF. (O.R. BOOK 4393,PG. 4095) A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 726.00 FEET OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPT THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR 1-75 (STATE ROAD NO. 93),AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 50 FEET THEREOF: BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34 AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4, S 88°5522" E 592.95 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID SOUTH LINE, N 00°21'36" E 50.00 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE NORTH LINE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (STATE ROAD 84) 100.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED: THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, CONTINUE N 00°21'36" E 2388.33 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID I-75 (STATE ROAD NO. 93); THENCE ALONG THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) DESCRIBED COURSES; THENCE S 68°12'38" E 406.96 FEET: THENCE S 62°39'17" E 389.59 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE, S 00°21'36" W 2071.95 FEET,TO A POINT LYING ON THE SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE N 88°5522" W 726.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. I-3 Words struekEkreuglt are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 37.395 ACRES MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by the I 75 Exit 15 Land Tru3t, Thomas G. Eokorty, Tru teeBC Naples Investments, LLP. 1.4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The development property is located in the southwest quadrant of the I-75, Exit 15Davis Boulevard Interchange, with frontage on Davis Boulevard (State Road 84), in Section 34, Township 49 South,Range 26 East. The proposed project site is presently undeveloped, but has been historically timbered, and utilized for cattle grazing. The majority of the property has extensive infestation of the exotic species Melaleuca. The property is generally without topographic relief, with elevations ranging from 9.8' to 11.6' above mean sea level. The site contains areas of jurisdictional wetlands including transitional wetlands in which the predominant vegetation is a mix of pine and cypress and associated upland and wetland plants. Natural drainage is southwesterly. The proposed water management regime for the project utilizes detention areas that will result in the post development surface water discharge volume being no more than the pre-development discharge volume. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The East Gateway PIMPUD shall be a mixed-use development,with a commercial and/or residential development located on the Davis Boulevard frontage, and the industrial/office park development or residential opportunity to be located on the northerly portion of the I U MPUD property. The commercial component of the development is limited to 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, and will be located on a 20± acre parcel. The commercial land uses proposed are those typically associated with major interchanges, including,but not limited to, convenience stores with gas pumps, restaurants, fast-food and/or sit-down dining, banks, and shopping centers anchored by a major grocery store, and/or major retail store(s). There is the potential for professional offices to be located in a shopping center, or developed in out-parcels within the commercial development area. The industrial/office park/residential development is limited to 250,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, and will be located on a 171 acre parcel. The industrial/business park land uses may be, but are not required to be, those typically associated with land development activities including but not limited to engineering and surveying offices, building material supply, and home improvement supply. A maximum of 250 residential dwellings shall be permitted in the entire PUD. Allocation of the dwelling units within the site will be determined at the time of SDP/Plat approval Each residential, industrial, commercial or industrial/business park land use, will be served with centrally provided potable water, sanitary sewer, electric power, and telephone services. Additional services will be provided as deemed appropriate. I-4 Words strue+t-through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 The entire 37.435± acre project is the stormwater management basin. The storm water management system consists of preserve/native vegetation for storm attenuation and dry detention for water quality. A catch basin/culvert system along with overland sheet flow will collect and convey project run-off to the dry detention areas, and to the preserve/native vegetation area once acceptable water quality is achieved. Flood protection will be provided to the project by raising buildings, roads, etc. in conformance with South Florida Water Management District criteria. The South Florida Water Management District criteria for building pad elevation is the 100-year, 3-day/zero- discharge storm elevation, and the minimum road elevation is based on the 25 year, 3-day storm event. After heavy rainfall events, surface waters from storage areas will be discharged through a bleed-down structure into the existing preserve in the Saddlebrook Village PUD to the west. The water control structure for Saddlebrook Village was designed to accommodate the discharge from the proposed The East Gateway PU1 MPUD. The off-site outfall was constructed during the construction of Saddlebrook Village. Said out-fall is in existence and functional.No further design modifications to the existing system are required. 1.6 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Ordinance". I-5 Words 3truch through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County Ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the East Gateway 4269MPUD development, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the East Gateway 124414MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, FUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the East Gateway PU MPUD shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which the P4 MPUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this P3$MPUD, the provisions of other sections of the Land Development Code, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUDMPUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the County Land Development Code, at the earliest or next to occur of Final Site Development Plan, Final Plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development. II-1 Words struelEthrough are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS A. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUDMPUD Master Plan. There shall be two land use tracts, portions of which may include water management lakes or facilities, and private street rights-of-way, the general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit "A". TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS TYPE UNITS/SQ. FT. ACREAGE+ COMMERCIAL_ 200,000 TRACT"C/R" AND/OR 250* 20 RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL/ 250,000 TRACT"I/B/R" BUSINESS PARK OR 17 RESIDENTIAL 250* *A maximum of 250 dwelling units are permitted within the MPUD B. Areas within theMPUD may be excavated and constructed as lakes or, upon approval, may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of Final Plat or Site Development Plan approval, subject to the provisions of Sections 3.2.6.3.5. and 2.7.3.5. respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Code, or as otherwise permitted by this PDMPUD document. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit "A", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-private) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT INTENSITY A maximum of 200,000 square feet (gross leasable floor area) of commercial development may be constructed in the "C/R" Commercial Tract. A maximum of 250,000 square feet (gross leasable floor area) of industrial and/or business park development may be constructed in the "I/B/R" Industrial/Business Park or Residential Tract. A maximum of 250 dwelling units are permitted to be distributed within one or between both development tracts. If Industrial/Business Park is constructed on the "I/B/R" Industrial/Business Park or Residential Tract, then no residential uses or dwelling units are allowed on this Tract. II-2 Words t uek through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 2.5 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat for all or part of the J }BMPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the P1 MPUD Master Development Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. Exhibit "A". PUD Master Plan. e• - • - .' -. ' ! - • - . • - • . • _ r „ -- C. The provision3 of Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. when !' de meat efder. •. - ,. - - . 3.2 of the Collier County Land De‘clopment Code, prior to the Submittal of 2.6 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATIONS Should lakes he excavated, the lake setback requirements described in Section 3.5.7.1 IJf the Land Development Code may be reduced with the administrative approval of the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or his designee. Lakes may be excavated to the maximum commercial excavation depths set forth in Section 3.5.7.3.1. of the Land Development Code, however, removal of fill from the East Gateway IBMPUD shall be limited to an amount up to ten percent (10%) (to a maximum 20,000 cubic yards), of the total volume excavated ••n' s rcial . A commercial excavation is not a permitted use. 11-3 Words st+wek-Ntrough are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 08-07-2015 2.7 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY A. All platted project streets shall be private and shall be classified as local streets. Utilization of lands within all project rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and signage may be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or his designee, for engineering and safety considerations prior to installation. B. Off street parking required for commercial uses shall be accessed by parking aisles or driveways that are separate from the project's connector road to Bedzel Circle in the 951 Commerce Center PUD. A green space area of not less than ten (10') feet in width as measured from the property line, or edge of pavement, whichever is greater, shall separate any parking aisle or driveway from the project's connector road to Bethel Circle. 2.8 AMENDMENTS TO PUDMPUD DOCUMENT OR PUDMPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this P SMPUD Ordinance or P13DMPUD Master Development Plan,Exhibit"A", as provided for in Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code. Minor changes and refinements =• = - •.-- - _ __ • _ may be made in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.9 DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS& FACILITIES Easements shall be provided for water management areas, rights-of-way, utilities and other purposes as required. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time of adoption of this Ordinance establishing the East Gateway PUDMPUD. Whenever the developer elects to create land area whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of property within the East Gateway P43DMPUD, the developer shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a Property Owners' Association whose function shall include provision for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space, subject further to the provisions of Section 2.2.20.3.8.of the Collier County Land Development Code. 11-4 Words struck-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 2.10 FILL STORAGE Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.2.8.3.6. of the Collier County Land Development Code, fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the East Gateway P-171-14MPUD. Fill material generated may be stockpiled within areas designated for development. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, a Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit, along with plans showing the locations and cross-sections shall be submitted to Collier County Planning Services Staff for review and approval. The following standards shall apply: A. Stockpile maximum side slope: 3:1 B. Stockpile maximum height: thirty-five (35)feet C. Fill storage areas shall be screened with a security fence at least six (6) feet in height above ground level. If fill is spread to a height less than four feet over development areas that are depicted on an approved Site Development Plan, no fencing is required. D. Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Division 3.7 of the Land Development Code. E. Fill storage shall not be permitted in Preserve Areas. local, Statc, or Federal agency with jurisdiction over the property proposed for appfeval, 232.11 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Policy 6.4:61.11 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County - .ased on the 93430.87±acres of native vegetation on-site, 7.72± acres (25% of the , native vegetation on site) is required to be fetaiftedpreserved—er--replanted. - _ _ _ ., . .::•: .-- = : , . -. . -- •• = = • . The applicant has requested deviation #4 to allow 100% of the native vegetation retention (preserve) requirement to be met off-site. The conceptual PUD master plan depicts an area labeled SFWMD created preserve. This re- ii-5 Words 60114-threugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 created preserve area is intended to meet requirements of other review agencies and is not credited toward Collier County native vegetation preservation requirements. 27132.12 LINKAGE TO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.3. of the Land Development Code, upon adoption of the P-T4DMPUD Ordinance and attendant 1U13MPUD Master Plan, the provisions of the 141-13MPUD document become a part of the Land Development Code and shall be the standards of development for the P4 MPUD. Thenceforth, development in the area delineated as the East Gateway PMPUD District on the Official Zoning Map will be governed by the adopted development regulations and P4.144MPUD Master Plan. 2.13 DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9, On-premises Directional Signs, for non residential districts, which permits two non-residential directional signs at each project entrance at a maximum of 6 square feet each, to permit a maximum of 2 non-residential directional signs at the vehicular, interconnect with the I-75 Alligator Alley PUD at a maximum of 32 square feet each. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60-foot wide local road to allow a minimum 54' wide local road for non-residential development and a minimum 40' wide local road for residential development. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks which are internal to the development to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the private street only, as identified on Exhibits B and C. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.l.f.i(d), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request that of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 1 acre in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-site preserve requirement is more than I acre. The proposed off-site preservation would be for 100% of the native vegetation of 7.72 acres with off-site preservation at a 1:I ratio. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.04.D, Standards for Cluster Residential Design,which requires the zero lot line portion of the dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line to allow windows along portions of the principal building that is on the zero setback Iine. II-6 Words struelr-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 SECTION III COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA(TRACT "C/R") 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "C/R",Commercial Development Area on Exhibit "A",IDMPUD Master Plan. 3.2 MAXIMUMCOMMERCIALSQTY The 20± acre Commercial Development Area (Tract "C/R"), shall not be developed with more than 200,000 square feet of commercial uses. Should a hotel or motel be proposed, a commensurate amount of commercial development opportunity shall be lost, based on a comparison of average annual daily trip generations. Dwelling units shall be permitted throughout the "C/R" area; however, where both commercial and residential are developed within this area, buffers between uses shall be required as described in Section 3.4.D. 3.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses 1: 1) Any retail businesses as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following categories: a. 521-Lumber and other Building Materials Dealers; b. 523 -Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper stores; c. 525 -Hardware stores; d. 526-Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden Supply Stores; e. Major Group 53 -General merchandise stores. 2) Any retail store engaged in selling food as defined under Major Group 54 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 3) Any retail businesses engaged in selling automobile parts and accessories; and retail gasoline sales (without service facilities), as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following categories: 1 Reference Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition III-1 Words ough are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 a. 553 - Auto and Home Supply stores, not including any installation facilities; b. 554-Gasoline Stations, not including service facilities; c. 7542 -Carwashes only. 4) Any retail businesses engaged in selling apparel and accessories as defined under Major Group 56 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 5) Any retail businesses engaged in selling home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores as defined under Major Group 57 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 6) Any retail establishment selling prepared foods and drinks, including alcoholic drinks (for consumption on the premises), as defined under Major Group 58 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 7) Any miscellaneous retail businesses as defined under Major Group 59 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, not including Industry Group Numbers: 593 - Used Merchandise Stores; 596 -Nonstore Retailers; 598 -Fuel Dealers; and not including the retail sale of fireworks. 8) Establishments operating primarily in the fields of fmance, insurance, and real estate as defined under Major Groups 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 67 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 9) Establishments operating primarily to provide temporary lodging such as hotels or motels as defined under Industry Group 7011 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. No more than 150 rooms shall be permitted. 10)Establishments operating primarily to provide personal services as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following Industry Groups: a. 721 - Laundry, Cleaning, and Garment Services, only including 7211 - Power laundries, family and commercial, and 7215 - Coin-operated laundries and dry-cleaning; b. 722 -Photographic Portrait Studios; c. 723 -Beauty Shops; d. 724 -Barber Shops; e. 725 - Shoe Repair Shops and Shoeshine Parlors; f. 726 -Funeral Service and Crematories; g. 729 - Miscellaneous Personal Services, only including 7291 -Tax return preparation services, and 7299 personal services, only including car title and tag service, computer photography or portraits, costume rental, dress 111-2 Words$4rttek-threugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 3 suit and tuxedo rental, electrolysis (hair removal), hair weaving or replacement service, and tanning salons. 11)Establishments operating primarily to provide business services as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following Industry Numbers: a. 7311 -Advertising Agencies; b. 7334-Photocopying and Duplicating Services; c. 7371 -Computer Programming Services. 12)Establishments operating primarily to produce, distribute, and exhibit motion pictures as defined under Major Group 78 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 13)Establishments operating primarily to provide legal services as defined under Major Group 81 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 14)Establishments operating primarily to provide engineering, accounting, research, and management for the following Industry Numbers: a. 8711 -Engineering Services (no outside equipment storage); b. 8712 -Architectural Services (no outside equipment storage); c. 8721 -Accounting, Auditing, and Bookkeeping Services; d. 8732-Commercial Economic, Sociological, and Educational Research; e. 8742 -Management Consulting Services; f. 8743 -Public Relations Services; g. 8748-Business Consulting Services. 15)Offices of government as defined under Major Group 91 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 16)Residential Dwelling Units a. Multi-family b. Townhouse c. Two-family attached d. Single family(zero lot line) e. Single family detached III-3 Words etruel rough are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 B. Accessory Uses Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including,but not limited to: 1) Parking facilities and Signage. 2) One , .etaker's .. .,:dance 2) On-site recreational facilities. Residential community recreation facilities located within the C/R tract shall be required to provide a minimum building setback of 30 feet if located adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD. Hours of operation for any outdoor facilities shall be from dawn to dusk. Lighting shall be shielded from adjoining properties and limited to bollard type lighting limited to the minimum height needed for security purposes but no greater than 12 feet in height. 3) Model homes and model sales centers. 3.4 DEVEIAPMENT STANDARDS(COMMERCIAL) A. MINIMUM LOT AREA: 10,000 square feet. B. AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 100 feet. C. MINIMUM YARDS (INTERNAL): 1) Front Yard: 25 feet or one-half of the building height as measured from each exterior wall. 2) Side Yard: One-half of the building height as measured from each exterior wall,with a minimum of 15 feet. 3) Rear Yard: One-half of the building height as measured from each exterior wall. 4) Yards abutting off-site residential land uses: 50 feet. 5) Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front yard by 10 feet. D. MINIMUM YARDS AND BUFFERS (EXTERNAL) A. Land uses proposed on Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84): 44-50-foot setback, except that canopies for gas stations must maintain a 39-30- foot setback, provided no gas pumps or pump islands are located closer than 40 feet from the Davis Boulevard Right-Of-Way. A 2-5-25-foot landscape buffer. •- : -- - _ • - - -• _.__ - - , III-4 Words struek-through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 and Division 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code, shall be provided along the entire frontage of Davis Boulevard. B. Where both commercial and residential uses are developed in the commercial/residential tract, a minimum 20' wide type `C' landscape buffer shall be provided between the two uses. Commercial buildings shall be separated from residential dwelling units by a minimum of 50'. E. MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES: Same as side yards. F. MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL: 35 feet dbirectly adjacent to the Saddlebrook Village PUD,or where a mixture of commercial and residential uses are developed within the C/R Tract. Zoned:35 feet Actual:45 feet 50-feet-in-aAll other areas. Zoned:50 feet Actual:60 feet G. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: 1,000 square feet per principal structure, on the first finished floor. Kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures are permitted to have a minimum floor area of 25 square feet, and are not subject to setback requirements set forth above. H. MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA: 200,000 square feet. GAS STATION LOCATION RESTRICTION: Gasoline service stations, as provided for in Subsection 3.3.A.3)b. of this document may only be located east of the.12.614MPLTD project entrance. J. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: As required by Division 2.3 of in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of site development plan approval. K. OUTSIDE STORAGE: Outside storage is prohibited in this -P-64)MPUD, with the exception that garden centers and covered storage of materials and products shall be permitted. L. ARCHITECTURAL UNIFORMITY: Commercial development in this IUDMPUD shall have a common architectural theme for all structures. Guidance for the commonality of 111-5 Words eirwelHhreugh are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MP UD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 architecture may be derived from Division 2.8.Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code, or may be unique to the PUDMPUD in conformance with the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center #9. Commercial development site design shall conform with the guidelines and standards of Division 2.8. Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code and the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center#9. M. CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE: One (1) caretaker's residence shall be permitted for the commercial 1) The residence shall be constructed as an integral part of the shopping center or one of the commercial buildings, and shall be entered from permitted: • - - .. --- - Y at the time of site development plan application. Parking for the €acilitio . 1II-6 Words struck eugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 3S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(RESIDENTIAL)(TRACT E"C/R") PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE TWO-FAMILY MULTI- SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE FAMILY DETACHED Minimum Lot Area 1,800 SF 2,625 SF N/A 3,190 SF 5.000 SF Minimum Lot Width 18 feet 35 feet N/A 31 50 Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 75 feet N/A 80 100 Min. Front Yard Setback*2 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 0 or 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 10 feet 0 or 10 feet*3 5 feet Min. Rear Yard Setback*4 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 40 feet 40 feet 45 feet 30 feet 30 feet Actual 45 feet 45 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 1 Story—12' 1 Story—12' Minimum Distance Between Structures*1 10 feet 2 Story—20' 2 Story—20' 10 feet 10 feet 3 Story—25' Floor Area Min.(S.F.),per unit 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 1,500 SF 1,500 SF Min.PUD Boundary Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet*1 0 feet*1 5 feet 5 feet Min. Rear Yard Setback*4 10 feet 5 feet 10 feet 3 feet 3 feet Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height*5 Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 35 feet 25 feet 25 feet _Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an applicasion for a building permit. *1 — Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided and a 10' minimum separation is maintained,if detached. *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. The minimum 20'setback for a residence may be reduced to 14'for a side-loaded or rear entry garage. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 14'. *3—Minimum separation between adiacent dwelling units shall be 10'. *4- Landscape Buffer Easements and/or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not be within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adjacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts, the principal and accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero (0) feet where it abuts the easement/tract. *5—Privacy walls for zero lot line units may be constructed to a maximum height of 8'. Note:nothing in this MPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. III-7 Words st k through are deleted words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 SECTION IV INDUSTRIALBUSINESS PARK,'OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (TRACT"IB/R") 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "IB/R", IndustrialBusiness Park Development Area on Exhibit "A", PUDMPUD Master Plan. 4.2 MAXIMUM • ! -. '. -- : - • --- - ' - •-'.- "- - INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT The 17± acre Industrial/Business Park Development Area (Tract "I/B/R"), shall not be developed with more than 250,000 square feet of industrial/business park uses. Instead of the IndustrialBusiness Park uses, dwelling units shall be permitted throughout the "I/B/R" area. The "I/B/R" Tract shall not be developed with mixed use development consisting of residential development. The "I/B/R" Tract shall be developed entirely with either non-residential or residential uses only. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses2 (Wholesale and storage uses shall not be permitted immediately adjacent to the I-75 Right-of-Way): 1) Any business engaged in building construction as defined under Major Group 15 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 2) Any business engaged in construction—special trade contractors as defined under Major Group 17 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 3) Any business as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following categories: a. 521 -Lumber and other Building Materials Dealers; b. 523 -Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper stores; c. 525 -Hardware stores. 2 Reference Executive Office of the President,Office of Management and Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition N-1 Words struelf-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 4) Any establishment selling prepared foods and drinks for consumption as defined under Industry Number 5812 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, not including fast foods, walk-up windows, and drive-through restaurants. 5) Establishments operating primarily in the field of real estate as defined under Major Group 65 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 6) Establishments operating primarily to provide business services as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following Industry Numbers: a. 731 -Advertising; b. 733 - Mailing, Reproduction, Commercial Art and Photography, and Stenographic Services; c. 734 -Services to Dwellings and Other Buildings; d. 737-Personnel Supply Services; e. 7382-Security Systems Services; f. 7384-Photofinishing Laboratories. 7) Establishments operating primarily to produce, distribute, and exhibit motion pictures as defined under Major Group 78 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 8) Establishments operating primarily to provide engineering, testing and business consulting for the following Industry Numbers: a. 871-Engineering,Architectural,and Surveying Services; b. 8734-Testing Laboratories; c. 8748 -Business Consulting Services. 9) Residential dwelling units a. Multi-family b. Townhouse c. Two-family attached d. Single family(zero lot line) e. Single family detached IV-2 Words siruok through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 B. Accessory Uses Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1) Parking facilities and Signage. 2) One caretaker's residence. 2) On-site recreational facilities, for residential only. Residential community recreation facilities located within the I/B/R tract shall be required to provide a minimum building setback of 30 feet if located adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD. Hours of operation for any outdoor facilities shall be from dawn to dusk. Lighting shall be shielded from adjoining properties and limited to bollard type lighting limited to the minimum height needed for security purposes but no greater than 12 feet in height. 3) Model homes and model sales centers. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIALBUSINESS PARK A. MINIMUM LOT AREA: 20,000 square feet. B. AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 100 feet. C. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): All industrial land uses (as set forth in the I, Industrial district from the Collier County Land Development Code), shall be limited to a 0.45 floor area ratio. Business Park land uses (as set forth in the BP, Business Park district from the Collier County Land Development Code), shall not be limited by a floor area ratio. D. MINIMUM YARDS (INTERNAL): 1) Front Yard: 30 feet. 2) Side Yard: The sum total of the side yards shall be 20 percent of the lot width, not to exceed a maximum of 50 feet. This yard requirement may be apportioned between the side yards in any manner, except that neither side yard may be less than 10 feet. A zero lot line option may be used in a unified plan of development involving one or more lots under common ownership where the preceding yard requirements are met relative to the unified plan. 3) Rear Yard: 15 feet. 4) Yards abutting off-site residential land uses: 50 feet. 5) Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front yard by 10 feet. E. MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES: Same as side yards. IV-3 Words dough are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 F. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 35 feet directly adjacent to the Saddlebrook Village PUD. 50 feet in all other areas. G. MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA: 250,000 square feet. H. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: As required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of site development plan approval. OUTSIDE STORAGE: Outside storage is prohibited in this I BMPUD, with the exception that garden centers and covered storage of materials and products shall be permitted. J. ARCHITECTURAL UNIFORMITY: Industrial/business park development in this PUDMPUD shall have a common architectural theme for all structures. Guidance for the commonality of architecture shall be derived from Section 5.05.08 Division 2.8. of the Land Development Code, or may be unique to the PUDMPUD in conformance with the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center #9. Industrial/business park development site design shall conform with the guidelines and standards of Division 2.8. Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code and the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center#9. K. CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE: development area, subject to the following: 1) The residence shall be constructed as an integral part of the shopping center penaitted-.- the time of site development plan application. Parking for the caretaker's IV-4 Words struelf-througk are deleted.words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 4.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(RESIDENTIAL)(TRACT"I/B/R"): PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE TWO-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE ZERO LOT LINE FAMILY DETACHED Minimum Lot Area 1.800 SF 2.625 SF N/A 3.190 SF 5.000 SF Minimum Lot Width 18 feet 35 feet N/A 31 50 Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 75 feet N/A 80 1 0 Min. Front Yard Setback*2 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 0 or 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 10 feet 0 or 10 feet *3 5 feet Min.Rear Yard Setback*4 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 40 feet 40 feet 45 feet 30 feet 30 feet Actual 45 feet 45 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 1 Story—12' 15tory—12' Minimum Distance Between Structures*1 10 feet 2 Story—20' 10 feet 10 feet 2 Story—20' 3 Story—25' Floor Area Min.(S.F.).per unit 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 1.500 SF 1,500 SF Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet Min.Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet*1 0 feet*1 5 feet 5 feet Min.Rear Yard Setback*4 10 feet 5 feet 10 feet 3 feet 3 feet Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Min.Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height*5 Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 35 feet 25 feet 25 feet Actual 30 feet _ 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area.shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. *1 — Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided and a 10' minimum separation is maintained,if detached. *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. The minimum 20'setback for a residence may be reduced to 14'for a side-loaded or rear entry garage. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 14'. *3—Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units shall be 10'. *4-Landscape Buffer Easements and/or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not be within a platted residential lot. Where a home site Is adiacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts, the principal and accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero 10) feet where it abuts the easement/tract. *5—Privacy walls for zero lot line units may be constructed to a maximum height of 8'. Note:nothing in this MPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. IV-5 Words struck nigh are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with final site development plans, final subdivision plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this 121413MPUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the Land Development Code of Division 3.2 shall apply to this project even if the land within the PUBMPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the Master Development Plan and the regulations of the PU MPUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title to the developer is bound by any commitments within this agreement. These commitments may be assigned or delegated to a master association to be created by the developer. Upon assignment or delegation, the developer shall be released from responsibility for the commitments. 53 ECDMPUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Exhibit "A", 1aU13MPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries, or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final, and may be varied at anytime at any subsequent approval phase such as fmal platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Land • , _. areas-in the-prejec - - - V-1 Words are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 County Growth Management Plan and the East Gateway PUD document, pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.5.1. of the Collier County Land Development Code. the UD Po �,v bw a n:,d a,-.zT - - - - . . - .. . m . . - . . . . .. ' . - - . . V-2 Words ugh are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 site development plan approval, however, the Administrator, or his designee's approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement 5.4 REPORT---AND—SUNSET PROI ' Development Code. However, given the subject PUD's location on a B. An annual PUD monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section -- : ' - - - - .. -. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is BC Naples Investments, LLP, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5.5 TRANSPORTATION The development of this l?I39MPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: \ e Y Florida Statutes Chapter 316 Uniform Traffic Control Law. V-3 Words struele-through are deleted,•words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 _ a _ -a D. Eternal and internal improvements determined by Collier County Transportation staff to be essential to the safe ingress and Ogress to the .. ? .. - :: :- !• • State Highway System Policy, as amended. Median access and control will•_ - - - __. -- - - •.- f -. - - _ • -- _ - - _ - --_ . . = - ... _ - ._ . _ ee - -- developer(s), its successor(s)in title, or assignee(s). H. Frontage. midpoint and/or reverse frontage interconnection(s) may be required developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s), will be responsible for the proportionate cost of any and all traffic signal(s), at any and all development entrance(s), when determined warranted and approved by Collier County, a war-reatedr uUpon the completion of the installation, inspection, bum-in period, and final approval/acceptance of any and all traffic signal(s), said traffic signal(s) will be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County,—and • - - - -- • - - -- - -- - -- •• - or FDOT for operations• V-4 Words are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 and mantenanc- : .. _ e :- : • , , - _ , - : ++ - J,B. The development will be designed to promote the safe travel of all roadway users including bicyclists, and will provide for the safety of pedestrians crossing said roadways. Bicyclist and pedestrian travel ways will be separated from vehicular traffic in accordance with recognized standards and safe practices, as determined by Collier County Transportation staff. K. The developer(s) shall provide any and all site related transportation 6C, All accesses and roadways not located within Collier County's and/or Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) rights-of-way will be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s). Access Management Policy, a3 amended, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Access Management On The State Highway System Policy, nded O. No direct access to the I 75 Right of Way will be permitted. P. The Davis Boulevard/S.R. 84 Project Development and Environmental Study•- _ •. . \ - ... - -- -- - - •e Y • -_ : : _. - . _ . .- .: _. - - - .. proposed right of way needs, reservation of right of way for dedication for V-5 Words stru°ate, h are deleted,-words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC), as amended. No buffers/easements or other facilities may be designated within the Davis _. at acceptable levels of service with all, or part of the proposed site impacts. This •. . .. . _ - • • _ - _ .. ... D. The project shall be limited to a maximum trip generation to 927 unadjusted PM Peak Hour, two way trips. gfaEling and site drainage plans shall be submitted to B. An excavation permit will be required for the any proposed lakes in C. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, except•!' _ - - - . . . . - - - - •---, --, - - : :. -•-: forel3efit'feneeEh the criteria established in Section 2.4.7.3. of the Collier County Land Development Code. V-6 Words struck-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 F. A South Florida Water Management Permit must be obtained prior to any site 5.g6 UTILITIES • - -• - - • - - .. . !' _ _ A. At time of subdivision platting or first Site Development Plan, a 20' wide non- exclusive easement will be provided by owner along the western boundary of the project to the CCWSD for water and wastewater conveyance along with construction and access easements. This easement may be combined with landscape buffer and drainage easements in a manner approved by Collier County. 5.$7 ENVIRONMENTAL The development of this PUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and A. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida - • - • - _-- • - _ ' - _ ., . - CommisJion (FWC) regarding potential impacts to "listed species". Whore V-7 Words str gh are deleted, words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 • • 116 feet in width. Accessory structures may be constructed simultaneously with, or following the 5.10 SIGNS All signs Shall be in accordance with Division 2.5 of Collier County's Land Development Code, and the Activity Center/19 Interchange Master Plan. 5A48 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS,BERMS,FENCES AND WALLS - . "- - . _ ... . 1) Grassed berms 3:1 2) Ground covered berms 3:1 3) Rip Rap berms 1:1 B. Fencing materials shall be of either wood or ma3onry. Q-A. Fence or wall maximum height: 9 feet, as measured from the finished grade of the ground at the base of the fence or wall. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered no greater than 18 inches above the crown elevation of the nearest existing road, unless the fence or wall is constructed on a perimeter landscape berm. In these cases, the fence or wall shall not exceed v-s Words struck g:are deleted, words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 6 feet in height from the top of berm elevation with an average side slope of greater than 4: 1 (i.e. 3:1, 2:1, 1:1,or vertical). frontage on 1 75. Development Cede- 1=B. For commercial and/or industrial development Aa 25-foot wide "Type D" buffer, as set forth in Section 2.4.7.4. of the Land Development Code, including a fence/wall, shall be installed parallel with, and along the PU1DMPUD's westerly boundary, south of the Preserve, extending south to the P-UDMPUD Property boundary. For residential development, buffering shall be per the Collier County Land Development Code. •- -- D - - . - - • V-9 Words vtpuok through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 07-08-2015 1 1 N FW TRrW w . sir�W W W ,S SF a' W I ?s. N W RW CREATED y I. W 'PRESERVE W W W 4 W W W W W W W W W y4i DEVIATIONS: i 20'WIDE TYPED' BUFFER SEE SECTION 2.13 OF THE PUD 1 8 0 150' 300' ORDINANCE SCALE: 1" = 300' N al ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN I m 0 TRACT "I/B/R" 1 ® RIGHT-OF WAY WIDTH n F17 INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK OR SIDEWALKS I C RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I- PRESERVATION STANDARDS I m in M 0 1 rn II II - C I ° -0 yl I O II - 8 '1 ZONED: PUD "' ZONED: I-75/ALLIGATOR ti USE: MULTI-FAMILY I KI) ALLEY CPUD RESIDENTIAL m USE: UNDEVELOPED, HOTEL AND { m I RESTAURANTS T TRACT "C/R" °° - PRESERVES:® -n TRACT M COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL C REQUIRED:7.721 ACRES* I DEVELOPMENT m II (30.87±ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION rpTal © © 73m I X 25%=7.72±ACRES) 13 C *THE ENTIRE 7.72±ACRES OF PRESERVE I ° I WILL BE PROVIDED OFF-SITE. _ IN k pz 1 - co IT-- v I 4 25'WIDE TYPE'D' BUFFER: r NOTES 25'WIDE TYPE BUFFER 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN I E — — — — - NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR DAVIS BOULEVARD(100' ROW) MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY SITE SUMMARY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE, ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO TRACT"C/R" 20±ACRES(200,000 SF/598 DU*) ii MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP TRACT"I/B/R" 17±ACRES(250,000 SF/598 DU*) OR PLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE TOTAL PROJECT AREA 37±ACRE I *A MAXIMUM OF 250 UNITS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE MPUD WITH THE LDC. i EAST GATEWAY MPUD ,.-1M ( Ill GradyMinor 0.(Allly Vbetarti MRKIAIM RA. ,w amc NMI Ha UN Am IPR9• KAMA 9pOBAR.FlotML 34101 EXHIBIT A DAM CWII ltngInraers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Archltcets MASTER PLAN WO NIA lt",ALUM KIIMAn61 MR.aAo1A.L110005161 Badness LC 9/1000244 REVISED 07/08/2015 1 Barka Ssdnes:2.95997.1144 Ira w.GrsAl Afleor.eo® Fort Myers,235.5904350 SHEET 1 OF 1 \\eGM.LncAL\FILES\PIANNING\PRIM-PLMFJNG\ECPUDA-EAST SATSWAY P56 NAM\DRAWINGS\ECPUW EXHIBIT A- VASTER PLAN(REV5J.DWG 7/B/2015 2:27 PIA 1 2 v I."9ln2/B/4(a"41 Nn il5 X MQL-P iFINXX Vdn \SnNN1Vln1\nNi,V an."'AM..''CV'-rnnrni\MIX'NV1.-r.n..\rINIAr Y14'T1 A1V11ni7lp\\ ~ i � s Q W b 6 iv II r'1 I In O Z CO W U W "•••.„ N cn O Q 5 a' pg Y k. }z Z U m v J O W •` ` •S• m IX O J m s'' D Q Q Q JJ L. � w v a o \ Q I w 4i \'',�,. ' �' kn D 213A00 'NOW „02 "l U '. \ •$ (- ; . CV oo t--- N1 ‘...;:s.•\: \ Q 1 jr yi s � �� �xs• 0 J `\"; '' iX v . I zz E ,r' ._ a�z po F- t. `� ,;t ', N 5 g E 35 I' N r» • V -,1- le 115 8� �.� ' a ca NII ' . in • ��Q W J -O y II T i U) ' ib W IJ U _ o co 7 y i i a 1. rfx:x.:6 ainrJx/x rwr(xn-im)mnpaqx x,...nle-n Its X.ixq wpmq\gnytmo.o\gtarocir AVAINFt IVO—Viltirlf11V,Ntateld-IntAnialthrkl\CllikriairjrM >-- 1 .-- < 11) M i- z U-1 ca m .2 z a m g,:.81• P;" U • LL, 8 1 1 21 g 0_ a: O , e , M 0 — — \'`../.` < (1) <", w • ;‘;''.''' ' La 17_ '; • A.'• -J EI— ,.:, \\ ,.c - cl0 b..7_, z a...7 8 f— in . D,v3 § LIJ .— 12 ' .• N/ cn m a Z ct — 1= NI o w -,. Y ',-,>•,\>.,s,s, — z _ P _ _ C.> "zt — P in 1 63A03 'NINI ,,O£ U 0 -4- La U.J ig ,LO1 1. ',. In ",..cn z L.)l 1 ; .iv „ *, ,,,, & -1 cn w u a .., , ce (r) 2 .••0 41 Q g z 0 co In o 1 • , ..., :'.'\ • 'S S' .14 w 3 in tA elz" g c- gl.:.•::".s:::,...T-s.' 6.4 i cc , u 6., ;.-.‘,`,-.-:•>;-':.: • Pa PIM 1 cc V 'N a: I■11111' .' •".. ;--' 44 4 I 1., ':::.2. N <: ' . z z (7) .•••:.\‘z.,/s•", ,\ 0 w z ,;•,1,2.', ..'..... ..,':,', > .--- .7 ; . , . l •..a •E , ›— < I- 1.1 :.j' RI. ., (J — i::-..:. •..‘. 'S.,. .. 41 ,‹ i 1— E E 3 Ei. z ,,,,_ 5 ;••••.:'...''',/,'•;', — w Al. i 2 I i 1.- . f 5 0 Ei 6 1 IY 0 R c_D i 1 g I,. ;/,'..sY.;>)'.1e,s'`,.. CO C"' .71 Nf //..;://‘;'://›. (:,:....t: r 111 8 B t,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•, a g t .., , .„ .. .,... 2 b. In ;'./,‘..•/,'',..;;',/: ,..7 t a . ,',',:‘ .'', . •.... • • . o La 0 (71 M 1 b x •t- t I — _ _ _ .• 1 .5`ii ,. i (73 U) I 0 1 1 I i 1., j¢{e( • East Gateway MPUD Deviation Justifications Deviation 1: Deviation#1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9, On-premises Directional Signs, for non- residential districts, which permits two non-residential directional signs at each project entrance at a maximum of 6 square feet each, to permit a maximum of 2 non-residential directional signs at the vehicular, interconnect with the 1-75 Alligator Alley PUD at a maximum of 32 square feet each. Justification: The LDC does not make provisions for directional signage to be located at allocation other than along a road frontage. With the mandatory interconnection the owner wishes to have the opportunity to provide directional signage for non-residential uses at the interconnection location shared with the 1-75 Alligator Alley PUD. If this were a residential tract, signage as proposed would be permitted. Deviation 2: Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 54' wide local road for non-residential development and a minimum 40'wide local road for residential development. Justification: The proposed 54' wide private road ROW is sufficiently wide to accommodate the required roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements outside the private ROW. The internal project roads will be private and the standard public ROW is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. The travel lanes for the proposed 54' wide private ROW have been widened by 2' over the minimum 10' lane width required by Collier County. The additional lane width will provide ample room for non-residential commercial vehicles to access the site. The full 60' ROW width for a local public road is not necessary. Deviation 3: Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks which are internal to the development to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the private street only for residential only portions of the PUD, as identified on Exhibits B and C. Justification: The provision of sidewalks on a single side of the proposed private roadway will be adequate to provide safe pedestrian movements throughout the project, and to provide pedestrian linkages to the adjacent property to the east, and to Davis Boulevard. Appropriate internal stop signs and pedestrian crossings will be provided throughout the project. It is anticipated that only a small number of future employees will utilize pedestrian systems to reach their place of Deviation Justifications(rev4).doc Page 1 of 2 Revised 07.08-2015 employment. Given the nature of the approved commercial and industrial land uses proposed, it is not anticipated that these businesses will not have pedestrian customers. Deviation 4: t Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(d), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request that the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties where the on-site preserve requirement 1` i is less than 1 acre in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-site preserve requirement is i more than 1 acre. The proposed off-site preservation would be for 100% of the native vegetation N of 7.72 acres with off-site preservation at a 1:1 ratio. r I Justification: The deviation for the increase in off-site preserve is warranted for the subject property due to several factors. One, the quality of the native vegetation found on the property is not high quality and more than 50% of the site acreage is exotic infested. Because the LDC uses canopy acreage as the determinant of native vegetation, the area having an understory I dominated by exotic vegetation continues to be counted as native vegetation. Second, no listed species have been identified on the property; therefore, the preserve area reduction will have no impact on any listed or threatened animals. Third, the property is located in an Interchange I Activity Center, which permit a wide range of land uses including intensive industrial uses including manufacturing, warehousing and distribution. Collier County will benefit ecologically I and economically by permitting off-site preservation of lands that can provide greater g environmental benefits, while permitting greater utilization of urbanized lands in the Activity g Center. The owner will re-create on-site wetland area of approximately 2.5 acres, which will provide for wading bird habitat. The wetland re-creation will also reduce the amount of fill I required to be imported to the site, thus reducing haul truck trips to the site. i Deviation 5: 1 1 Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.04.D, Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of the dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line to allow windows along portions of the principal I building that is on the zero setback line. I Justification: All or portions of the principal building may be located at the zero setback with the PUD requiring a I minimum 10-foot building separation. The developer desires to have flexibility to allow for window openings on the principal building on the zero setback line provided a 10-foot principal building f separation is maintained. This type of development scenario is visually and functionally equivalent to a conventional single-family detached residence. y I I I I I I i i Deviation Justifications(rev4).doc Page 2 of 2 Revised 07-08-2015 i 1 i 1 i AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT- PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 20,2015 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA-PL20150000178; BRIARWOOD PUD (PREMIER AUTO SUITES) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner(of the affected property): Agent: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC Frederick E. Hood,AICP with Davidson Engineering,Inc. Highway 268 (East Dock) 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 North Wilkesboro,NC 28659 Naples,FL 34104 Contract Purchaser: Premier Auto Suites of Naples, LLC 849 7th Avenue South, Suite 203 Naples,FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend the Briarwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance 95-33, to allow upscale storage facilities as a principal use in Tracts B and C, to add accessory uses associated with such storage facilities, as well as other proposed site related modifications. More details of these changes are provided in the"Purpose and Description of Project" section of this staff report. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Briarwood PUD is approximately 209.17 acres and generally located on the east side of Livingston Road, north of Radio Road, west of Maplewood PUD/other parcels zoned RSF-4, and south of Golden Gate Canal. Tracts B and C,as shown on the Master Plan of Briarwood PUD, is approximately 15.97 acres and comprises the affected land area for this petition. Tracts B and C are generally located at the northeast corner of Livingston Road and Radio Road in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on following page). Tracts B and C are shown as Tract"A"and`B"on the Briarwood Plaza plat. PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 1 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 1 II� lr tp�� � " W DDdtES " A dak a. :,ff r- 1111141: P Iii BAYSIORE DRIVE - i,Q, , i ii ' 11. 1 + p ■ : • n p ii ! g 11 - ir '' RN m�F s P4 T Y1Jll# Iii r�. _ w to PI • i '/ �Oil r ADB•ORT•PUUINO RWO �y£ o I. Em 0 roo4' r _1g r. /1 IV 1 1., 7 \ 9/t 1. `,.." I: ''.2 4 1 3 1 —I .L ■ LIVWOSTON ROAD u o li 5 iL� o E ! �j p tit �, �y j J CROW Pawre `"_..�." F' i A 'n WITTENBERG A.� DTiA,s ti DIM■ p MRERBTATE-B COUNTY BARN ROW Y ill 5 D a / 6 5p !C 0 SS41 / 4 .- i X11 s 1m v g 11 fir" 4 2:+1 ew J - TA"ROAR' -,i- II BNiTA BARBARA BOULEVARD -_-. LAMA F A -_i BOULEVARD ' �„ 8 Zv i fQqu \ LI�Q PLwTARw 1 8. @, .. { y (,� h, 1' 9WlEVARD m It A H _� .n 8ABAL LArE u 1c �' m .. P Yn o it gi ii + 18 gli " Al i `'ky pRy z i 02 p z l ) '�4 ,c i0 NOT r0 BDAIE N o r _ r tri -=`). g 2 , 0 �eeeo liiiiieaes 1111111111 1 °° �� ' ® ' MI N �..I-! 16 F/ .�� • S■ ■ MIMI n UV e Z ` be d i gr I:i N Jed4dn ff N:6 Niii.1 ', \ : ' �' <d :.:t::i::.: '•: fai 878 - i al. r1 .: ?;k:iiiif:E::::::..:..:.>:.....:.�GrBa� ��p��q'�`' v? iE� AA/1M=;fm pE':P::::;:E::�.� • • RAJ 1 emkki ialikOAlPAam ii::, ¢A .IpgP :I9� �Aaa ,r lion,„,,„,,,r ti .:.. ,die�,,,,t+� ace a,� tali o D OVA ` QC3�C29 r'�t,Rj141',� , 0 11 �I � a;4 , . , ' 1144 s oo pooh. �o .� :8� ���_. ' �;��,o 0 T e oo c�pcoa�o ..30 ,c�0�� � � g( �� tt���:old,�e� 11E9 1111 4. t ; p oo V -! 1'� Ltiiti Ira. 0 i ..": : alai Litt OO 1c' it a7 1 BCA aL6>-n.aS ... ■.4 QfHl 0 0 V 83f elil e tail' ��` EirC •-•-.1:-:— Ian t. .4 . r, Dm I s MIll rP��' 0 C122:2; 111111709:GGGC:013 V eggigagr 4231 am o - . 111111 �- -_.,�0.:„...,:,;::a:.:::::::::t. MMi ffMrt olek 0 b000�.d E :333.33311 T T .... .. � ' ` � • DC •1-=. II • r rrn • • mr DCDC_al i _ a t a I ' CCDACCX2O II rAC..wmr. LA WON er.DN. WI 7 I _ ' ' . e PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: On May 18, 1976, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Ordinance Number 76- 22, which rezoned the subject site from "A" Agricultural and established the Briarwood PUD. The 1976 Ordinance has since been amended and repealed, ultimately leading to the current version(Ordinance 95-33). On January 15, 2015,the CCPC reviewed petition CU-PL20130002048, a conditional use request for Premier Auto Suites of Naples, LLC. The conditional uses requested in that petition were for #3 Private Clubs and #5 Commercial and Private Park Lots and Parking Garages. The Conceptual Site Plan from that petition (labeled Exhibit `B" in Attachment H) depicted ten (10) buildings and a central clubhouse building. According to the Conditional Use staff report, "As noted in Attachment E, project narrative, the operational characteristics of this use is a hybrid of the requested conditional uses and will functionally be more in-line with other multi-tenant developments by providing luxury garage suites for the unit/ suite owners. It is staffs understanding that the intended use of these garage suites will include owner display of unique 1 collectable grade vehicles and include recreational lounge areas as well as storage of more common types of vehicles. The suites cannot be used for any short or long term residential use. Staff notes that this specific use is not well defined by the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC) or by our LDC. Staff concurs with the applicant that the general use is consistent with the requested conditional uses listed above." Additionally within the staff report, staff recommended the CCPC forward the petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation for approval, but subject to the following conditions: 1. Each suite may contain a water closet, and a limited mezzanine floor for an owner recreation lounge area limited to no more than 2/3' s of the ground level floor area. All doors shall remain closed when the lounge is in use. Any exterior balconies shall be located internal to the subject development and not face any residential use. Residential uses are not permitted in the subject development including but not limited to guest 1 houses, or guest suites,and any short or long term habitation. 2. Vehicle repair is not permitted. However, minor routine vehicle maintenance and detailing by the suite owner is allowed within the buildings/ suites. All doors shall remain closed when maintenance and or detailing occurs. Outside hand washing of vehicles is permitted. 3. An eight (8)-foot high masonry wall/fence meeting LDC 5.03.02.H shall be provided along the perimeter of this development and the adjacent Briarwood residential uses with the required Type B landscape buffer meeting LDC 4.06.02.C.2 standards located on the residential side of the wall/fence. Retained native vegetation within this buffer can use used to meet the landscape buffer plant requirements. 4. No amplified outdoor sound equipment or systems are allowed. 5. Speed limit signs shall be posted at 10 mph at both entries and every 100 feet along all drive lanes within the development. The speed limit signs shall also note that engine revving is not allowed. PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 3 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC {t{ Chairman Mark Strain made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Karen Homiak to recommend approval of the petition, subject to staff's conditions and as follows: x 1. Building height shall be consistent with Briarwood PUD standards. 2. Building floor area shall be consistent with Briarwood PUD standards. 3. Owner shall provide a letter of approval from the Briarwood Home Owner's Association for the architectural design of the proposed buildings per Briarwood PUD prior to final Site Development Plan(SDP) approval of the pending phased development. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. Because the Conditional Use petition contained a total building square footage that exceeded the maximum allowed by the PUD Document, the applicant was advised to make application for a PUD Amendment. The Conditional Use process could not be used as a means to surpass the limitation on building square footage imposed by the PUD Document. As such, this process is more appropriately afforded by the PUD Amendment application. On February 24, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) considered the petition and determined that this request required a PUD Amendment rather than a Conditional Use application, and they approved a motion to direct staff to consider the application fee and review costs associated with the current conditional use as satisfying the costs associated with the PUD Amendment application and that all fees assessed to the developer would be advertising costs associated with the PUD Amendment petition, and in addition, staff would expedite the processing of the PUD Amendment application. The subject petition (PUDA-PL20150000178) represents the PUD Amendment, which would amend Tracts B and C by proposing the following: 1. Adding upscale storage facilities for boats and personal watercraft, vehicles, recreational vehicles,motorcycles, and the like, as a principal use; 2. Adding accessory uses associated with upscale storage facilities; 3. Adding minimum standards for upscale storage facilities; 4. Increase the maximum floor area for upscale storage facilities, from 20% of the commercial land area to 40%of the commercial land area; 5. Adding a deviation allowing an alternative Type D landscape buffer along Livingston Road and Radio Road; 6. Allowing architectural review of properties without recorded covenants or deed restrictions to be regulated by architectural review standards of the Land Development Code at the time of Site Development Plan(SDP)or Plat approval; 7. Adding a new Alternative Landscaping exhibit for Livingston Road and Radio Road; and 8. Adding a new Conceptual Master Plan for the upscale storage facility. Staff understands the developer is proposing the site design as shown in the Conceptual Master Plan (labeled Exhibit `B" in Attachment A) because it is in connection with the upscale storage facility(Use#14) and that an alternate site design for Tracts B and C may be proposed if Use#14 PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 4 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC is not approved. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING(FOR TRACTS B & C ONLY): This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding Tracts "B" and C of the Briarwood PUD Master Plan. The PUD Master Plan identifies the subject site as "Tract B" and "Tract C," whereas the Official Zoning Map and Briarwood Plaza plat identifies the subject site as "Tract A" and "Tract B." For simplicity, this staff report will hereafter identify the subject site in accordance with the Official Zoning Map (i.e., Tracts"A"and`B"). North: Preserve area on Tract P/recreation on Tract D-1/right-of-way for Skelly Road/developed multi-family residential on Tract B-1, all of which zoned PUD. East: Developed multi-family residential on Tract B-1 and lake drainage easement on Tract L-1, zoned PUD. South: Right-of-way for Radio Road; then farther south is developed multi-family residential/accessory use/common areas (Tract 7, 8, and 9 of Foxfire Unit 3), including right-of-way for Foxtail Court, all of which zoned PUD. West: Right-of-way for Livingston Road; then farther west is vacant commercial land (Tract A of Collier County Production Park Phase 3-A and Lot 27 of Collier County Production Park Phase I-B), zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD); right-of-way for Market Avenue; and vacant land (Lot 28 of Collier County Production Park Phase 1-B),zoned Public Use(PU). Fk fad See aerial on following page gE PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 5 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC w jnp -•-r> i •_1..,'11 s`„'IL :'' _._J..; / ', .., ,4 1,1zil '� �� -•\,'>t � j,I . 1 _ _ �I S . � 1-;:":".;, Briarwood Plaza �' ;;�C��ay I �t1 (Tracts A& B) ni z k�Jf 4�37. +4• ,, ;>„ PUDA-PL20150000178 �`'t.\n\' `, 3 - r r, 14 r d`r 'I ''�!�a�"l i'�1 ? y -r u,r r a' a ✓' i 2A}1 U.�'..C1, �� r�'Aag _ #41,11111111111'.' '.,',-'., •='T 4,, U Ztr 'r 'J'''T1 ■lyl rlrr. ( + t, 7 r• e ,{ gpr J l Y L,NE: 1 A -.L PAM, ei =alb t 4 - 1 i - , � 11° y»fi I: ' % ��u4 r , .uhu3a { •f/ ,1141 ~ :—..----i:....:4,• .'''' .” "" ue ryr^?7.1 N'__.j't__ I1 V LL,�y[yt'Tt I� _�� .. �.. x,,11 s+, .11 1-' jlY�'/ h._ ,f? ,1 ' 41' IFSE n'' V ` le-1` Znr�rn� f.14tF iiiii , f r ,::". 1 i 2'� ` I ./ O I F4..„Es.. .k J +" `j .,T , t . r a, :::',V''t t I' _- ju� ) t7l a 1 17`_`,1• V e „ ,. II in ?ro .fir.''",17 RM..1 1 .. � n� 'f l�l. �.+.I �.�� n7111 w� '-i�� Aerial(source County GIS) Intentionally left blank PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 6 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC IPIAT WOK_LI_Jvas 2.11_ Imp 2 (of 2 BRIARW000 PLAZA A PORTION OP BRO. 31,T.4111 S.,R. 25 E. St2./97!:t 1 ... 1E; 1 „ ,, 111 1 . A : r4 -.1; 1 Ili : I i 1 • 1 1 • . . --, i. 0 ,,,,.; 7.1. 1 —-----—----— ————ffriii i iii,: 7*'---——————— — . trort.Ti ion TM=MOO MA MIAMI IV r Portion of Briarwood Plaza Plat , i..- i, Briarwood Plaza (Tracts A&B) , ‘,1 PUDA-PL20150000178 _ -----1---' . - 4 4 ' 1 -V1, i . * , 1 ti .!. '• .P.4 , , , • '''' ' '%., 4 \ 44 ' ' •' i it •, 1 .... , 1 Nire” ..., An / - i .1 1. ; .. I i I . „ 1 __ '• _ - _ -4-40111111 r;:-/Alt 4 - - ;,--1 171F,,S 1 t V 1 k Li S. F-:,--i,i■(1 F.1____ ,;-_---,: :„.„,,,„„t_ ____,:-_---:-___ _ ,. _....____,...„ ___atireil Imagery(source Google Earth-3/31/2014) PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 7 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC s t i t GROTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: { W Future Land Use Element(FLUE): 1 I The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The site is eligible for a base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre (DU/A); the PUD is approved for 3.11 DU/A. The site is not eligible for 1 commercial zoning. However, the 15.99-acre commercial tract in the existing PUD was deemed consistent by FLUE Policy 5.10. Accordingly, FLUE Policy 5.1 is applicable in evaluating the proposed uses. It states, in relevant part: a The uses allowed in the commercial tract are not presently allowed by the FLUM designation on i 1 the site. However, the existing PUD was approved prior to adoption of the present GMP and is now deemed "consistent by policy." Accordingly, FLUE Policy 5.1 is applicable in evaluating the proposed PUD amendment. It states,in relevant part: "Policy 5.1: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element,as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13,the following provisions apply: * * * * * * * I e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a I comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and 1 the proposed zoning district." I I FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staff's analysis and determination of part 1 only, as the required comparative public facilities impact analysis was not provided with the submittal. In comparing zoning district intensity, it is necessary to determine the lowest intensity zoning district(s) in the LDC allowing the existing uses within the PUD to the lowest intensity zoning district in the LDC allowing the proposed uses, For this petition,no new uses are being proposed; therefore,the proposed zoning district(PUD Amendment)is of the same intensity as the existing. In comparing public facility impacts to determine overall intensity, it is necessary to have a comparative analysis of impacts from uses and acres/square feet allowed in the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district upon public facilities (usually viewed as category A public facilities) - arterial and collector roads, potable water, sanitary sewer (wastewater), drainage, solid waste, and parks and recreation facilities. [The Information requested has been provided within the Briarwood PUDA, Attachment "E" Comparative Level of Service (LOS) Analysis, illustrating the intensity requirements noted above. The Conceptual Master Plan (labeled Exhibit `B" in Attachment A) provides for Parking Lots/Garages at 40% of the Commercial Land area in total. While the analysis erroneously refers to impact upon LOS -which is not the standard of review under Policy 5.1 — the applicant has reasonably demonstrated that PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 8 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC the proposed use will not result in increased traffic, water consumption, wastewater generation, etc.] Based on the above analysis, staff finds the above consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the CCME. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's application and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this PUD Amendment within the five (5)-year planning period and found it consistent with the applicable policies of the transportation element. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and 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 or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The revisions being made do not affect the environmental portions of the PUD Document. Any preserve and listed species requirements related to the existing Briarwood Plaza Plat are being addressed with the SDP. 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 request,the PUD Document and Conceptual Master Plan (labeled Exhibit "B" in Attachment A) for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval. Utility Review: Approved. No comment. Zoning Services Review: As previously mentioned, if approved, this application would modify the list of permitted uses to include storage facilities for boats and rsonal watercraft,aft, vehicles, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, and the like. In addition to the upscale storage facility, this petition seeks to allow complimentary common areas and amenities generally associated with the PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 9 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC principal use, including but not limited to a clubhouse and visitor parking. Complimentary uses such as indoor recreation spaces (e.g., pool tables, card games and exercise equipment), personal office space,and bathrooms would be permitted as accessory uses within individual units. The proposed use is unique. It is not considered self-storage and it is not well defined in both the LDC and the existing Briarwood PUD Document. Furthermore, because the project intent is to construct and sell each unit, the proposed use is not considered a business and, therefore, no Business Tax Receipt(BTR) is required. The PUD Document contains self-imposed restrictions that would prohibit personal businesses from being conducted from the premises. No BTRs are to be granted to any unit owner. Units shall not be utilized as dwellings,places of business, or live- work units. In the Conditional Use staff report (CU-PL20130002048), staff noted the following with respect to the effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, odor effects: 1 "The types of vehicles using this facility include some that have performance and or aftermarket exhaust systems that can cause enhanced levels of noise, which is a concern given that this facility will be open 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. Additionally, the conceptually staggered configuration of the building, cannot by itself, fully eliminate associated noise "bounce" due to normal echo effects between buildings. This echo effect will likely result in enhanced noise levels to be reflected or bounced into the adjacent residences. Staff is recommending conditions of approval to partly address this issue. It is also possible that additional noise could occur due to [sic] some of the accessory uses envisioned by this conditional use given the 24 hour operational nature of the proposed facility. Staff is further recommending conditions of approval to partly address this issue. Based on the information provided by the applicant staff is of the opinion that the proposed project including the recommended conditions should not generally generate additional noise, glade glare [sic], and odor or otherwise generate undesirable economic impact on the neighborhood above those permitted in this community commercial tract." With respect to compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district, staff also noted the following(in the Conditional Use staff report): "As previously noted the site is adjacent to residential lands all of which are developed parcels. Staff believes that with the recommended condition, plus the LDC required site development elements, the project will be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff therefore believes that the proposed [sic] Conditional Use to can [sic] allow the proposed uses of private clubs, and [sic] commercial and private parking lots [sic] and parking garages uses eaa and [sic] be deemed compatible with the neighboring properties. Furthermore, staff believes the recommended condition of approval in combination with the proposed master site plan improvements and LDC standards adequately protect the public's interest." PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 10 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC The Conceptual Site Plan that was presented to the BCC with the Conditional Use application (labeled Exhibit `B" in Attachment H) is nearly an exact facsimile of the version presented in connection with this PUD Amendment, 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. It is staff's opinion that the upscale storage facility and proposed site design depicted on the Conceptual Master Plan (labeled Exhibit `B"in Attachment A), including the requested landscape deviation, would be suitable as it relates to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, and traffic/access. This petition seeks to limit a planned public access point located along the northeast boundary of Tract A to emergency vehicles only. This point of access, which connects to Skelly Road, is internal to the PUD. The limited emergency vehicle only use of this access is primarily due to a request by the residents of Briarwood The limited use also addresses the non-retail community service nature of the proposed use. The limited use access remains a valid interconnection consistent with the PUD master plan and will not significantly impact surrounding communities. Potable water and wastewater service would be available via existing mains. An eight(8)-inch water main is located adjacent to the property at Skelly Rd, and a water main runs along Radio Rd These may require looping at the project to accommodate fire flow.An eight (8)-inch gravity main is located adjacent to the property at Radio Road Specific connection points will be determined at the time of SDP review. 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. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the affected property and the continuing operation and maintenance of the subject property are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 11 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP/zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, staff is of the opinion this petition is consistent with the FLUE and the applicable elements of the 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. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed use is unique and its performance has not yet been tested or experienced within the unincorporated limits of Collier County,staff believes an upscale storage facility such as this, in connection with the proposed site design as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan (labeled Exhibit `B"in Attachment A), would present a project that would be compatible to the properties internal to the PUD as well as to those external to the PUD and within the immediate vicinity. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Usable open space will be addressed at the time of SDP review. 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 mana g ement re g ulations and o p erational improvements provements when development approvals are sought at time of SDP review. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 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. PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 12 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC The petitioner is seeking approval of one (1) deviation to the landscaping requirements, which if approved, would be implemented along Livingston Road and Radio Road. Staff provided an analysis of the deviation in the Deviation Discussion portion below in this staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested deviation. 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"(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): . I. 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 zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff determined the petition is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.1, the CCME, and the Transportation Element. 2. The existing land use pattern; Tracts B and C (as shown on the PUD Master Plan) were previously approved for commercial uses. This petition merely seeks to add upscale storage facilities as a permitted use. Staff described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning"portion of this report. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD. No new land is being added to the PUD as part of this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The petitioner is not proposing to modify the boundaries of Tracts B and C of the PUB Master Plan. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested to allow the contract purchaser the opportunity to develop the land with principal and accessory uses other than what the PUD currently allows. PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 13 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 1 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant and the stipulations offered by staff, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies reflected by the FLUE of the GMP. The PUD Documents contains restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 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 SDP review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Staff does not anticipate the project would create a drainage or surface water problem. All drainage solutions would be addressed at the time of SDP review. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The setbacks and project buffers will help ensure that light and air to adjacent areas would not be substantially reduced 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 a host of 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; PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 14 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an 1 individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes 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; As previously mentioned, the subject principal use is not well defined in both the LDC and the PUD Document. As such,staff would not allow it to move forward in the development process without a LDC code change, or in this case, an amendment to the PUD. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted earlier, the new principal use that is being requested with this amendment is unique. It is staff's opinion the amendment would not be out of 1 scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the proposed GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. But, as previously stated, the principal use is not well defined and therefore, not permitted anywhere, at least without a favorable LDC or PUD amendment 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 extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP approval process and again later 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 PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD PREMIER AUTO UTO SUITES) Page 15 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC 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 elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have 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. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking one (1) deviation from the landscape requirement of the LDC, which is found in Section Four of the proposed ordinance (see "Section 8.3.2" of Attachment A). The deviation seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4.b,which requires the following: A continuous three (3) gallon double row hedge spaced three (3) feet on center of at least twenty-four(24) inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of three (3) feet height within one year shall be required in the landscape buffer where vehicular areas are adjacent to the road right-of-way,pursuant to section 4.06.05 C.4. The petitioner seeks "to provide alternative Type "D" Buffer landscaping for Principal Use #14, along Livingston and Radio Roads planted consistent with Exhibit C. The alternative landscaping plan shall accompany SDP construction drawings for review and approval." Petitioner's Rationale: "The intent of the referenced section of the LDC, provides for the screening of vehicles in a parking lot adjacent to [sic] right-of-ways. The intent of the LDC section, in the case of proposed use #14 in the PUD document will be met with the absence of parking areas between [sic] in these areas due to the placement of buildings along the Livingston and Radio Road corridors. The double row hedge will not be continuous, but will be strategically placed along these right-of-way areas where parking lots are not planned or visible from the roadway to help screen building massing in excess of LDC requirements." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: A Type "D" Buffer, which is required along road rights-of- way, typically requires a row of trees spaced a maximum 30 feet apart. This is due to the presence of off-street parking areas being on the interior of the site, shielded by the building(s). The landscape proposed for this amendment shows an alternative Type D buffer with additional trees and shrubs, staggered, adding a more opaque buffering material to soften the impact of the project. The proposed Conceptual Master Plan(see Attachment"A") illustrates an area proposed near the perimeter of the site (labeled "Stabilized Subgrade for Fire Access") that would be comprised of a non-paved surface for emergency access. Staff is sensitive to this area remaining as restricted to emergency vehicles only, an area where owners and their guests should not be permitted to drive, in part, so as to avoid the creation of a makeshift racetrack. It is staff's understanding the applicant has agreed to eliminate the potential for hard surfacing (concrete or PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 16 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC asphalt) for this emergency access, and to install a Fire Department approved natural material (stabilized grass), which provides an indirect benefit of better aesthetics. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that this perimeter be designed with a natural surface rather than a hard surface. It is staff's opinion that all these components would create superior design that exceeds the minimum landscape requirements of the LDC. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held a NIM on April 14, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. at the Briarwood Clubhouse, 335 Skelly Road,Naples, Florida 34104. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on August 5, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward petition PUDA-PL20150000178 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance (including Conceptual Master Nan for Use #14 and SDP Buffer Section) B. Official Zoning Map C. Application D. Traffic Impact Statement(TIS) E. Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM) Summary F. Email from Fred Hood to Eric Johnson(project phasing) G. Staff Report for CU-PL20130002048 H. Conceptual Site Plan(labeled Exhibit`B")from CU-PL20130002048 PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 17 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC PREPARED BY: $ It /Lc ERIC L. JOHNSON, CP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: �_.. �• / • 3 RAYM•17► . :ELLO 7i ONING MANAGER DATE ZONIN• IIVISION f - `/ • i s MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 8 l � /S-- S FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 8 b A 5 DAVID S. WILKISON, P.E. DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA-PL20150000178 BRIARWOOD PUD(PREMIER AUTO SUITES) Page 18 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC I li ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2" OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-33, THE BRIARWOOD PUD, AS AMENDED, TO ADD UPSCALE STORAGE FACILITIES AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN TRACTS B & C: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, TO ADD ACCESSORY USES ASSOCIATED WITH UPSCALE STORAGE FACILITIES AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN TRACTS B & C: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, TO ADD MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR UPSCALE STORAGE FACILITIES, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR UPSCALE STORAGE FACILITIES • IN TRACTS B & C: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FROM 20% OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND AREA TO 40% OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND AREA, TO ADD A DEVIATION ALLOWING AN ALTERNATIVE TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG LIVINGSTON ROAD AND RADIO ROAD, AND TO ALLOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF PROPERTIES WITHOUT RECORDED COVENANTS OR DEED RESTRICTIONS TO BE REGULATED BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STANDARDS OF • THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR PLAT APPROVAL, TO ADD A NEW ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING EXHIBIT FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD AND RADIO ROAD, AND TO ADD A NEW CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN FOR THE UPSCALE STORAGE FACILITY, FOR THE PUD PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 209.17+ ACRES LOCATED ON THE • EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, NORTH OF RADIO ROAD, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,on April 25, 1995,the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 95-33, the Briarwood Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Planned Unit Development document attached thereto(the"PUD Document");and WHEREAS, Frederick E. Hood, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Premier Auto Suites of Naples, LLC, has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 95-33, the Briarwood Planned Unit Development, and the PUD Document. I a: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: Briarwood PUD(Premier Aulo Spites) PUDA-PL20I50000178,rev.8/5/15 Words stsiek-tiveugh are deleted,words underlined are added. Page 1 of 6 5 1 'F SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO PAGE ii, LIST OF EXHIBITS, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-33, THE BRIARWOOD PUD Page ii, entitled "List of Exhibits," of the PUD Document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 95-33,is hereby amended as follows: LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Briarwood Development PUD Master Plan 1 EXHIBIT B Community Commercial Conceptual Master Plan for Principal Use#I4 EXHIBIT C Community Commercial Alternative Landscaping Cross- Sections and Elevations for Principal Use#14 SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION VI, TRACT B & C: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-33, THE BRIARWOOD PUD Section VI, entitled "Tract B & C: Community Commercial," of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No.95-33,is hereby amended as follows: * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.2. USES PERMITTED 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: A. Principal Uses: * * * * * * * * * * * * Brlurwoad PUD(Premier Auto Allies) PUDA•PL20150000178,rev.8/5/15 Words seletbfough are deleted,words underlined are added. Page 2 of 6 I is i (12) Tailoring,millinery,garment alteration,and repair. 1 (13) Museums. 1 (14) Upscale storage facility for boltts and personal watercraft. vehicles, recreational vehicles,motorcycles,and the like. I1 a B. Accessory Uses: 1 al The following are permitted in association with Principal Use#14: 1 a. Complimentary common areas and amenities generally associated with the principal use. including but not limited to a clubhouse and visitor ■ parking for guests of unit owners. b. Complimentary uses such as indoor recreation spaces (e.g.. pool tables, card games and exercise equipment).personal office space, and bathrooms are permitted as accessory uses within individual units. I ()GI Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district (2)(31 Signs as permitted by County Ordinance. 1 I ! * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.3 REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.3.6 Maximum Floor Area: A. Principal Use#14: Forty percent(40%)of Commercial land area. 5 B All other Principal Uses: Twenty percent(20%)of Commercial land area. l C. Any lands not utilized for Principal Use#14 shall be developed at a maximum of 1 twenty percent(20%)of Commercial land area remaining. i 1 6.3.7 Minimum Standards for Principal Use#14,Upscale Storage Facility i A. "Development" shall refer to the collective construction of an upscale storage facility project. B. All doors shall remain closed when the unit is in use. Briarwood PUD(Premier Auto Suites) 1 PUDA-PL20I50000178,rev.8/5/15 Words strusk-threugh are deleted,words underlined are added. 1 Page 3 of 6 , 3 1 i i i I 1 C. Units are not intended to accommodate bedrooms, sleeping facilities /accommodations, guest quarters/guest suites, short or long term habitation, or for overnight stays, D, Units shall not be utilized as dwellings,places of business, or live-work units, E. All exterior balconies shall be located internal to the subject a sub' development.elopment. None shall face Livingston Road,Radio Road,or any adjacent residential use. F. No vehicle repair or detailing outside of individual units or in the common areas of the development is permitted. G. Minor and routine vehicle maintenance is Glowed within each unit by the unit owner, All doors of individual units shall remain closed when maintenance t occurs.Oil changes are not permitted. H. An 8 foot high masonry wall meeting the standards of LDC Section 5.03.02 H shall be provided along the perimeter of this development and the adjacent Briarwood residential uses. A Type B landscape buffer meeting LDC Section 4.06.02.C,2 standards shall be located on the residential side of the wall. Retained native vegetation within this buffer can use used to meet the landscape llpffer plant requirements. € I. No amplifie j outdoor sound equipment or systems are allowed. J. 10 mph speed limit signs shall be posted at both entrances and every 100 feet along all drive lanes within the development.The speed limit signs shall also note that engine revving is not allowed. K. Mezzanines accommodating recreation lounges shall be limited to no more than two-thirds(2/3)of the ground floor area. * * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION THREE: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION VII,DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO I ORDINANCE NO.95-33,THE BRIARWOOD PUD Section VII, entitled "Development Standards," of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 95-33,is hereby amended as follows: * * * * * * * * * * * * * S 3 1 Briarwood PUD(Premier Auto Suites) PUDA-PL20 1 50000 1 78,rev.8/5/15 Words sew are deleted,words underlined are added, Page 4 of 6 1 i i 1 — -- 1, t k 1 7.12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1 All residential buildings constructed within Briarwood must comply with the f architectural review standards which shall be specified by the recorded covenants and deed restrictions that go with the properties. All Properties having no recorded covenants or deed restrictions shall only be subject to Collier County Land Development Code architectural review standards, as applicable, at the time of plat and/or site development plan approval. * * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION VIII, LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO.95-33,THE BRIARWOOD PUD Section VIII, entitled "Landscape Development," of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No.95-33,is hereby amended as follows: * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8.3 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT 8.3.1 Single Family Dwelling Sites: With the exception of platted portions of Unit One and Unit Two, all future single family development areas shall be in compliance with Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 8.3.2 Multi-Family, Streets and Right-of-Way and Commercial: (to include Tracts A,B and C) • All landscaping for multi-family, and commercial tracts and streets and right-of-ways shall be in accordance with Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Deviation #1: A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02 C.4.b, which requires a continuous 3 gallon double row hedge spaced 3 feet on center of at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of 3 feet height within one year where vehicular areas are adjacent to the road right-of-way, to instead permit the developer to provide alternative Type D Buffer landscaping for Principal Use #14, along Livingston Road and Radio Road planted consistent with Exhibit C. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Briarwood PUD(Premier Auto Suites) PU©A•PL20150000178,rev.8/5115 Words struck-through are deleted,words underlined are added. Page5of6 1 SECTION FIVE: ADDITION OF EXHIBIT B, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN FOR PRINCIPAL USE #14, AND EXHIBIT C, COMMUNITY COMMERICAL ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING CROSS-SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL USE #14, TO THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-33, THE BRIARWOOD PUD Exhibit B, Community Commercial Conceptual Master Plan for Principal Use #14, and Exhibit C, Community Commercial Alternative Landscaping Cross-Sections and Elevations for Principal Use #14, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, are hereby added to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 95-33. SECTION SIX: 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: Scott A. Stone %A/I5 Assistant County Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT B: Community Commercial Conceptual Master Plan for Principal Use#14 EXHIBIT C: Community Commercial Alternative Landscaping Cross- Sections and Elevations for Principal Use#14 ilrianrood PUD(Premier Auto Suites) PUDA•PL20150000178,rev.8/5/I S Words otr cic +hrou"h are deleted, words underlined are added. Page 6 of 6 Exhibit B U \,. T3uOT3ARONO 350 dm Orla3,unAi atm MAW „// \\\ l ...... ../ . MON ova...am:Am 150350 (0.09103 43., ...oz U313119 30/01101FY1 N."' ,■■■.\\'■ \ifIV a Id A 1.5 i NA.,,..■..011,■■■•1:■■■■•■:,,,,,, , ,,,,, iTh ( i TibrARASNAugli iolfairawauawa , 4:17/ ,,,,, —wine , • 1 g a ' : ,-.S. - / I °: •, / IN ONI 0380dOtid ., L \ ,1 li PIP s• , I q Mk / . AlittandIRMINIHIM1111"111"1111— 4*!-4*.P*__, ,t ! -,/ ) 5 i 4? I-1-11_11 P /, .,...:■tegOrmw‘111114, ini! ' r.illutp * . .,, ! i Ril ..„,il 4 •4,,,/,.i i 2 ri--.. ., Altrai,11 Illr,- milPfill *47 it,: , , ,,:. — . 4:0 .,le .// • ii E 1 f i- 2. i ML-.116r. _Ji 44P ■V/i Ail '". • IIONAIMA[1.001141111—ii- • "Ai I. ' I Aie_s- liijp. ,, ..• , ell° 1•,,,I 1 1 !„,_ ,..,1 1,_._,-.. _I 1 g •.—j' --f—p 44 Zi tAp-.T N%It, k ii, r.*. ,-/I/fv/_,/.//i/1/ .g''•47 i 4.,,,, ,, \ DI, . ' 1=161. II 0 iir N Ar Af/ .,/ ,14' i ?mem so= . , ti ,..: , 411■ : , 4.4' / - 4”. q \ _,„ t \ 7,/ ../0 „,41 7 •0,,,, „ ,,, g , , — 1.111r: Ai e. 1 ! g a lg m„ I A .* P A • ; /. 1 • militir-' --'i.c, ,(/ . ../ g "1E t1--: -- • • ' - •a tr—,- ,-----. / ;, ' * ; rag 1 - i •—s - 10--o '',' ,',• - i I1 II \\, .____ --= ---------.----- -----, : — ri • g II. n7; I i . --=---:-- ._____• ,, .0'„..,, ,, m •, ,ggiVrsi. -, i.....r.......1,....,..... . cr 4 9 7311HOO yaw.1.0113CNNWI ILIUM 35n owl 113IJ09&M5010, ona 000NNVIN IIININOZ •3.1.151 1 le REVISTOM .. INOONED11 I VILY/1........... PREMIER AUTO SUITES OF NAPLES ,..Hr„... g MAUER AUTO elms anmatur `,..a ' ...,...3.3 q '• r.'•.:' Wan Mt OF NAPLES F e“ rmAurennx unman t"........' F.) ' ”'''' EXHIBIT B:CONCEPTUAL MASTER .1w INn....1 .... PLAN FOR PRINCIPAL USE 014 L Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B m3 :Zl D mO " 0nc � oa'Pm s m= O zz 3 mmr� c1Tt n� AAZ A c y = A C c c C @ m Z m 2`fli+i 1:00 m z; m s s s S v N m 1 mc_ mg A2 g rrn r r ; O O Z S N N Z , =�A C-yZi oyU•f(//OO�� Q O p '� m m 0 N o Z 2• i pA P�5 Z n m o O C C O W O% I ;m Z ZZN m m(nc o P o 8 P 5 0 m o _ _ �" to 41 i y !^ mcm R1 H u_ v T S 4 (n m m m gmz m urn Z 1 C c <mm A p Z o n z a p D co . m z Z z yO y A x m z OO ,g Nvv ov o m GI' D z A m 0 ' m m v z> P= r x 0 ch .. ' D0 -2 km cmTnm zA a - 111 lo N N N g N S r0 CZ v m 0 m r O $p = AmmmR D D Op �~w z;rm 9 D A3p O A 0o o 0•i ;al 8P Om 1 w= r a AZm s v> m Q m n Am mm -4 0 m 0 A:e R S ~ C .0 D rYi rpZ T g b V g A p• 6d fq�y n to O $ ^5 m p comm 0OOQ @ii '(' }} i r O m Z .* T i p OI N 41 RI AIfIl�Q S¢.' ti" Z TQ �n -ZI A (n pQZ III! !aa � \. 1{E�1 �," E-'» A 1] - y f C (n fm- _e 0.L Y ? (1 A RT1 �b 1b- p A s fi Lo,�if e t a o =i 4 ■f ' S P a L Z N =g t a •, D S V� C i a -- o o . m i .. - s s s' 7s A A z g i 'm m .0 7:1 CA s yy y v . 1 4 z ,,,, 3b —YY,e- N) nM --.. ..--- MOON N 5 , PREMIER AUTO SUITES OF NAPLES ""' T 'i" "i"p1 rwrmww+a a, *MIM AUTO SUITES R»Wi1 ,,1,=»mxO_t/_ Oi MAPLES •G. S]j T` "���� ♦4S m1AVEfAE=MOM ntmEF .. ._e N RRyu,*.1**'R 'EXHIBIT B.CONCEPTUAL MASTER fuvlE><,nNt@ meRe .1. _ _, »+.�.....-.y�.. PLAN FOR PRINCIPAL USE p I4 Pre ,». my+.,b ` Page 2 of 2 Exhibit C • 1 , • i 1 , ill i .. ow I 11 F ‘A.:)- ■ .4 1 1.111 IL rcni i C. 4-.4411111Fii , c„ P T \. ;i 4. s, c4 . = !INII 1 H . 0 ; - . i 1 1 0 ad I 1 0 = .1-- - —-- -— 90 riliiiiEL-11, R° 4 XI mP m II i:;111111 a) t 8.2 : CI: ii _ _,...4. c 1)E. 11, if 0' iii ' '41111 i 7) ! I 16 ` sA4 gl go, !ii 4%;r4vimitil 0 /'\ ' lial s. walla.' ial, 11111;; eit3t; 2 1111 . 4.. II firt:i4 ; ca , Immo. c m4 111.. fill A 'il'AIM IIII 74 \ •F *Y"1 14 I E , 4 il FD- \''l m I \ \ 1 r 4 ., ...: k / . -, ali ca m z x n- 771iii s ..- ... cg , ......,, KE9.8 ;4•-• i r ),.< - al t-AIIIII 11 1 • \.., 2 0 - I i rill MIG-Zii m 1 ej •,/,s; I .0440'■'"Ve--) 4-IR ,, _ • N• riii.v.'-f- 1, 4 14 I il 4:*• --- rWliT IIIIL It 12 t' i .,,.Y t•L',s- -f- #2-‘• 1 '/ Ik 1 II lilt :IN 11111M-1 E , > -1 ;h 17 1111 1 1 • 1 ii • 1 ./.: ".' i liP;44-' ll m k 1 .a. ip_ v-0,1 >m .gi • ..... 'ii k' 11112 $ Ili 141 1 . r r 7110 •111.1 N ill k.J" *75):)111 3 . 1 ot .t,t„,. ,- 31 i:,\\ ow 1,1714,1*..2.4w iiiiii 111 go. \II I. , -,7bAjar,N 07:-4-71111 ; i"-- E-11 lillir VAI 7" 16iimmi g 14 ruing! III 1 -4"' ''11.■ j.'■ 04241c-d7.. • i r - ...°4111111111111111 i ! 1 CD itirell lifili ce3 -1 c) iiii DD hi 4, I i il .0 Premier Auto Suites of Naples Collier COUllty,FL SDP BUFFER SECTION/ELEVATION PLA 1 1E ;hill !III filp f ifli I i 1 1 Tijjiiiiii P ii3 _ B5365 it 3 ata 6 LIVINGSTON ROAD k 174111111ftstill111411 [o' © ©o moo© P�A �V i 5 GM �© © g 1 1 Ek, *r 1 i 1 Q B - ri• r . Q©Qggiglif ilw �� _, ®�®®.,,,..... ?I wig in mico B6ARwD BLVD 44 ®_` 9© ©. .A. sa 111131 illvm°I MEN coon �©� ® o .wan _ y.l ® _ ill NA r.I gg tai 11 1E11 =FM 11.311... Eta um suc-Aim ma, ffm mills I'-a-u +P�us'T1sn-s' S" E- © E� ..t,F n-„ 0 E7 4 e-29-54 w-n-44 95-25 VPP-1" riiiiiISHIMMEISI° 'Al r "1oe I0 Ita ."I. SNI7RIROOIt OPoVE_�! a° J° F.P.k L EASEMENT -- r i 16 x x n i SAN MARCOS SOULEVARO g It 'S ti SEI 9 S s x L L J i ST.CLUR SNORES ROAD F m IS 1 1 aP ; S n r - I 1 S ST.CLAIR SNORES ROAD •.4.1-...---' e- g O O 3 -iA 2 P1 °F, 1 V7 t A - � n Z L _ m fC Zs.: G r c O W ff.8 g Ns. g ro 88325 Trebilcock planninu•eneineerin0 Traffic Impact Statement Premiere Auto Suites of Naples (within Briarwood PUD) Site Development Plan Collier County, Florida 06/16/2015 Prepared for: Prepared by: Davidson Engineering, Inc. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 4365 Radio Road, Suite#201 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite#202 Naples, FL 34104 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-434-6060 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock @trebilcock.biz Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PU0)—SDP—175—June 2015 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. �`1111 / .�\\' ,aloe,�'`, ® •'�; No.47116 '� Digitally signed by Norman J.Trebilcock P.E. '� * Norman 47116 .-. * j ON;mnNorman J.7rebikock P.E.47116, a 1 o=Trebicock Consulting Solutions,PA, a w Trebilcock cock P.E. STATE OF a Je, z-. ou=Norman 1.trebllcock, 7:-...-.1)/3% STATE lJP' a,Or ` emai=ntrebikocktptrebikockblz,c=U5 K/q� 47116 Date:2015.06.1909A9:17-OG'00' (11%\,,IC -%`3 /aNA Sro\'~ Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. "Olin 11`�� FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 12 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—T1S—June 2015 Table of Contents Project Description 4 Trip Generation 6 >' Trip Distribution and Assignment 7 Background Traffic 9 Existing and Future Roadway Network 10 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network—Link Analysis 10 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis 11 Improvement Analysis 14 Mitigation of Impact 14 APPENDICIES Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan 15 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist(Methodology Meeting) 17 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition 24 Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits 29 { { Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 13 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—T!S—June 2015 Project Description The Premiere Auto Suites of Naples is a proposed commercial development located in the northeast quadrant of the Livingston Road (CR 881) and Radio Road (CR 856) intersection, in Collier County, Florida. The subject parcel consists of approximately 15.97 acres and it is currently vacant land zoned within the existing approved Briarwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Collier County Ordinance #95-33. Refer to Fig. 1 — Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Fig. 1—Project Location Map 133.1 RV Aifrn;,..;0 NOW Y "WI,Gale Pkwy ij Golden Gate Pkwy 40 71 A 1 „•i,,.,:,,, _ 3 I RCWECT 4 1 LOCATION 4 I';v.01,. , D Radio Rd tlss Zw+w � l nadln H 1 ndIm•tes pies poll I unuv cln:, _s Davis;.Blvd 1,.,,r :.I,I 4 $ ?'. Cladas titvd w *ewtadd G1;,, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 14 I 1 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—715—June 2015 The studied site will develop the approved commercial portion for Briarwood PUD. The Premiere Auto Suites of Naples Site Development Plan (SDP) project proposes a i commercial condominium car facility, to include up to 159 garage condo units and amenities. t A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff t on January 8, 2015, via email (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist). For t purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with I the Collier County 2017 planning horizon. i The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition does not provide a land use code to model a condominium car facility. As coordinated with 1 Collier County Transportation Staff,this Traffic Impact Statement (TES) proposes a hybrid 1 land use scenario to better illustrate the weekday storage use of the facility and the ( weekend recreational aspect of this development. As agreed upon, warehouse — LUC 150 (variable — square footage gross floor area) is used towards weekday trip generation, while marina — LUC 420 is illustrated to verify for weekend operational impacts (variable—number of storage units will substitute the number of berths). The associated common recreation amenities are considered passive incidental to principal land use, and are not included in the trip generation analysis. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. i Table 1 Proposed Hybrid Analysis—Development Program* 5 Land Use ITE Land Use Total Size Planning Horizon Year Code .. ..........s.:.......:..,_.._..:.•... <'.._._.._..:....:: ._Ov OittaQ �.`a"�,-.� .÷_....'`:0 a yi'i--^,'i^s�F 1MiR,,::—^_:_::...:..^;•...;;.. Marina 420 159 berths 2017 1: i Note(s): *The LUC's above are two ways of classifying the same property in a hybrid land use scheme.The I proposed condominium car facility does not have a direct ITE LUC. f 3 Accesses to the project site are currently provided via two median directional left-in/ t $ right-in/ right-out connections to northbound Livingston Road (CR 881) and westbound ) Radio Road (CR 856), respectively. No new connections are proposed as part of this ) i analysis. x k Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 15 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood P11D)—SDP—TIS—lune 2015 Trip Generation The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The software program OTISS -- Online Traffic Impact Study Software (Version 3.1.1.193) is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates were used for the trip generation calculations. Based on ITE recommendations, no reductions for internal capture or pass-by trips have been taken into consideration. A summary of the project trip generation calculations is illustrated in Tables 2A and 2B. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition. Table 2A Project Trip Generation (Unadjusted)—Average Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Ind t> i e i per IOC �o al' n er T tel Warehouse LUC 150 278,261sf 115 30 145 29 86 115 Table 2B Project Trip Generation (Unadjusted)—Average Weekend Saturday Sunday l and itse pixie Enter xlt Iry lj Enter I '.otal Marina LUC 420 159 berths 19 24 43 33 16 49 I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 16 3 y3 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the proposed SDP development is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning Staff. The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour Weekday and is graphically depicted on the next page in Fig. 2—Project Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak Hour Weekday. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour Weekday Collier Distribution PM Peak Hr Project Traffic Roadway Link County Roadway Link Location of Project Vol.* r ffic Ta N Link o ��.�ti Livingston Rd 55.0 Golden Gate Pkwy to 40% SB-12 NB-35 Radio Rd 59, - kd to Uv1 gston 4 Radio Rd 70.0 Livingston Rd to Santa 20% WB-6 EB-17 Barbara Blvd Note(s): *Peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. } 44 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 17 } Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briorwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 Fig. 2—Project Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak Hour Weekday --: z INI "ulth. •1 , IE•ti I - 0 PROJECT IMP C3 DUN /BOW MAP BY PERCENTAGE a * - ■ r= 1 E t CO I nmplt■Ic . Eg)fiadto Ild in—* '''P3 podium <-3. , -1. 4 / i0 1 il ( T x Nattle . til I 1r ipai AirrinF I ..." t *444 I 1 I oxfue I r.,untryCk** * i ' ) 1 i.4 1 I I A 'i,i ?e l l lvi^IMO I I I I I / c..2: t I a , 4)•1 11014/ro of MAW ILIA' '1444.11 Gale P4wY IN cAlvirv.t..at,P,,v PROJECT IMP DISTRIBUIKIN MAP BY PM PI 14R 111 I =al 0 043 jouteouNpf i GUM NI/t(PM'35) cic",,,I;,-q, pirvi-q *--- romplear . 1..1.ind I krill, on 1116 KWh('nd':•(. mu"- 1 :1 w" tJ 1,1 Nt int ip 11 ftiltnit 1,Alia. Country CIO TI tt IE1J _ 11 I I I _ ._■ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 18 1 1 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briorwood PUb)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 t i. Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2%growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual traffic counts (estimated from 2008 through 2014), whichever is greater. Calculated background traffic growth rates are consistent with the rates illustrated in Collier County 2014 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2014 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is to be used to determine the future estimated I background traffic. Table 4, illustrates the projected background peak hour peak direction traffic volume (without project) for the future year 2017. 1 ) Table 4 Background Traffic without Project(2014-2017) 2014 AUIR Projected 2017 Projected 2017 Projected CC Pk Hr,Pk Dir Traffic Pk Hr,Peak Dir Pk Hr,Peak Dir Roadway AUIR Roadway Background Annual Growth Background Trip Background Link Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Link Link ID Location Traffic Growth Factor w/out Project Bank w/out Project # Volume Rate I {trips/fir} (%/yr)* (trips/hr)Growth (trips/hr)Trip 1 Factor* Bank*** .. 71tir.-T Pkwy. ,240 20 .2 f6 2 3 R=adi Rd Radio Rd 69.0 Airport Rd to 1,080 2.0% 1.0612 1.146 0 1,080 Livingston Rd ii il►tgsp*Rd = _ ___ — ltadio Rd ] A g j SAta 0 2 6 .prig .:4;': _-;:, 029 A '7b i arb�ara Blvd � v__ : .._. -= M _ Wiz.= - f i Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate-from 2014 AUIR,2%minimum. **Growth Factor=(1+Annual Growth Rate)^3.2017 Projected Volume=2014 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2017 Projected Volume=2014 AUIR Volume+Trip Bank.The projected 2017 Peak Hour—Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or i Trip Bank calculation,which is underlined and bold as applicable. i i 1 1 i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 19 ) 3 3 i I 1 I Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briorwood PUD)—SDP—PS—lune 2015 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2014 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current i. Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under i construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five year Transportation 1. Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be I I committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier s County 2014 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through 1 project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 I. Existing and Future Roadway Conditions 2014 Peak Future Min. Dir,Peak Hr t Roadway Link CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist. Standard Service Project I Link ID# Location Roadway Build out I LOS Volume(Peak Direction) Roadway +iisiezi Gai~e ti Uvingston Rd `5.0 Pkwy Radio = ( Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 I � I other subsequent links, and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2017 future build-out conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service(LOS)—With Project in the Year 2017 2014 Peak 2017 CC Dir,Peak Roadway Peak Dir, Volume Min LOS Min LOS Link Peak exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Hr Service Peak Hr Capacity Link Link Location Volume Dir,Peak Hr Volume Impact without with (Project Vol Project? Project? ID# (Peak Added)* w/Project By Yes/No Yes/No Direction) ** Project 1i!n.pton ;' >' Gotde0 .ate:P:k . Radio Rd 69.0 Airport Rd to 1,800(E) EB—11 1,157 0.6% No No Livingston Rd Livingston 3dto j Santa Barbara: lvd Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2017 Projected Volume=2017 background{refer to Table 4)+Project Volume Added. Site Access Turn Lanes Analysis i Accesses to the project site are currently provided via two median directional left-in/right-in/right-out connections to northbound Livingston Road (CR 881) and westbound Radio Road (CR 856), respectively. No new connections are proposed as part of this analysis. For more details refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Livingston Road (CR 881) is a six-lane north-south urban divided arterial roadway under Collier County jurisdiction, and has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on FDOT Index 301, design speed of 45 mph, the minimum turn lane length is 185 ft. (which includes a 50 ft. taper) plus required queue. Radio Road (CR 856) is under Collier County jurisdiction and is currently a west-east four-lane, two-way urban arterial roadway and has a posted legal speed limit of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. } Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 111 3 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 Project access is evaluated for turn lane warrants based on Collier County Right-of-way Manual: (a) two-lane roadways — 40vph for right-turn lane/ 20vph for left-turn lane; and (b) multi-lane divided roadways—turn lanes shall always be provided. Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two- minute period for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. As stated earlier in this report, a hybrid land use scenario is used to illustrated trip generation characteristics for proposed development as follows: WC 150 warehouse (variable —square footage gross floor area) for weekday peak hour traffic, and LUC 420 marina, illustrated to verify weekend operational impacts (variable — number of storage units will substitute the number of berths). A summary of the project trip generation calculations is illustrated in Tables 2A and Table 2B of this report. It is noted that weekday AM — PM peak hour traffic volumes are more intense than weekend projected traffic. As such AM— PM peak hour trips are used for the purposes of operational — site access turn lane analysis. Estimated turning movements generated by the proposed development are illustrated in Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits. Site Access 1—Livingston Road (CR 8811 The existing right-turn lane is approximately 285 feet long. A right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The project is expected to generate 23 and 6vph right-turning traffic during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively (which is below the 40vph threshold value). At the minimum, the northbound right-turn lane should be 210 feet long (185ft deceleration lane with taper and 25 feet of storage). As such, the existing right-turn lane is adequate to accommodate the proposed traffic at this location. The existing left-turn lane is approximately 315 feet long. A left-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The project is expected to generate 46 and 12vph inbound left-turning traffic during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively (estimated traffic is above the 20vph threshold value). At the minimum, the southbound left-turn lane should be 235 feet long (to provide a minimum of 50 feet of Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 112 I I Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Brlarwood PUD)—SDP—T!S—June 2015 storage). Therefore, the existing left-turn is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic i ' at this location. I 1 Site Access 2—Radio Road (CR 856) 1 t The existing right-turn lane is approximately 435 feet long and provides approximately 200 feet of queue storage. A right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The project is expected to generate 23 and 5vph inbound right- ( turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. At the minimum, I the right-turn lane should be 210 feet long (to provide a minimum of 25 feet of storage). As such, the existing right-turn lane is adequate to accommodate the proposed traffic at i this location. I The existing left-turn lane is approximately 515 feet long. A left-turn lane is warranted , as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The project is expected to generate 23 and 6vph inbound left-turning traffic during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively (estimated traffic is above the 20vph threshold value). At the minimum, the southbound left-turn lane should be 210 feet long. Therefore, the existing left-turn is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic at this location. I Project Driveway—Gate Stacking I The minimum required driveways throat depths are calculated to minimize the possibility that vehicles entering the project site will spill back onto Livingston Road and/ or Radio Road. Based on AM peak hour inbound traffic volumes (most intense entering volumes) and a one (1) minute queue/vehicle, the minimum required throat depth — 1 stacking distance is 25 ft. Under proposed conditions, the distance between the ROW line for Radio Road (or the back of the crosswalk for Livingston Road), and gate is 100 ft. ( , r In addition, both main access drives provide turnaround areas to accommodate U-turns. I l The project access driveways are calculated for sufficient outbound stacking distance to l avoid blocking the gate (outbound traffic) or the first on-site circulation roadway. Based on PM peak hour outbound traffic volumes (most intense exiting volumes) and a one (1) minute queue/vehicle, the minimum required throat depth — stacking distance is 25 ft. For both accesses, the proposed 100 feet driveway throat depth is adequate to I accommodate projected traffic. I 1 x 1 }C t Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 113 f i 1 i I g Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—T!S—June 2015 Improvement Analysis Based on this roadway network link analysis results, the proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network traffic at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate proposed development generated trips without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. Based on site access turn lane analysis, turn lanes at project access points provide adequate deceleration and storage length to accommodate proposed new traffic. Mitigation of Impact F The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. y4 { is } Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 114 3I j3 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SOP—TIS—June 2015 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan (1 Sheet) } } ) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 115 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 MINS 11111414WOCK44.11 12 TYPED ENOUY Ml4R1l MG wwnee N 4,mm$111111M1=1111/M11111 1M1•111=1*, 'uki.44to FPE591VE -'J- - SCAM IN FEET •1% r \, � , 7 % ' II i � `_ r� � '`"� o 1- I \ •.iii. 1 1 !I eel l �ia € / I r p .`$ iil w44. :i, i ( L. • irt ix 41 -i Hi l 1 11 ff i 17.11 �+ -h III 1 I ur - P { 1 r _ I■11- 1 Lei: 1 ...... . Q_ I b l 1 I ; ti l / I _ e�J 1 / 12111170 IA lNAR Ll4RO.DR412 NE.7.DJP M PER m TOGO IMIDSOAPII Nf 7iR 701111* POMP KO wnu5!E.El.FA.wr RESE6..N Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA P a g e 1 16 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TS—June 2015 $i 1 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) (6 Sheets) ( ( Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 117 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within 8riarwood PUt7) — une 2015 1 SDP TJS INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply,or N/A(not applicable). Date: January 8.2015 Time: NA Location:NA—Via Email People Attending: Name,Organization,and Telephone Numbers 1) Steve Baluch,Collier County Growth Management Division 2) Norman Trebilcock.TCS. 3) Cinrian Malaescu.TCS Study Prenarer: Preparer's Name and Title:Norman Trebilcock.AICP,PE Organization:Trebilcock Consulting Solutions.PA Address&Telephone Number: 1205 Piper Boulevard.Suite 202.Naples.Fl,341101 ph 139-566-9551, Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name&Title:Steve Baluch.PE Collier County Transportation Planning Department Organization&Telephone Number:239-252-2361, l Applicant's Name:Davidson Engineering.Inc. Address:4365 Radio Rd,Suite 201.Naples,FL 34104 Telephone Number.;39-434-6060 • yr000sed Development: Name:Premiere Auto Suites of Naples—Site Development Plan(SDP) Location: on the northeast corner of Radio Rd.and Livingston Rd,(refer to Fig.1). Land Use Type:weekday—Industrial:weekend-Recreational ITE Code#: LUC 150—Warehousing;LUC 420-Marina Description: Proposed approximately 195,494sf buildings—to include 159 garage condo units and amenities (subject to change in accordance with SDP design). LUC 150 and LUC 420 are considered to account for the combination of storage space and recreational uses. • directed by Staff,rates are used for LUC 150 trip generation calculations in order to best describe the nature of the development. LUC 420 is used to provide for the weekend recreational use. Page l of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 118 3 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within 8riarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 Flg.l-Project Location Map l N 1 _ r^� Ia!r eowNry PVr'• Zoning Existing:existing approved Briarwood PUD-C.C.Ord.#95-33 Comprehensive plan recommendation:No change Requested:to allow for the SDP approval Findings of the Preliminary Study: Study type: Since projected new project traffic is below 100 AM or PM peak hour trios, this study qualifies for a Minor TIS-no significant operational impacts with minimal roadway impacts and work within the county right-of-way.The TIS will include AM-PM peak hour trip generation,traffic distribution and assignments.significance test.roadway, link analysis and site access points turn lane analysis. Itoadwav concurrence/capacity analysis-based on LUC 150 PM Pk Hr trip generation. Operational Site Access Analysis - LUC 150 weekday AM-PM Pk Hr and check weekend LUC 420. Study Type: (if not net increase,operational study) Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS Major TIS ❑ Page 2 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 119 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 ,5tudv Area: Boundaries:south—Radio Rd..west—Livingston Rd Additional intersections to be analyzed:NIA Build Out Year:221¢ Planning Horizon Year:2017 Analysis Time Period(s): Concurrency—Weekday PM Pk Hr: Operational—Weekday AM-PM Pk Hr and Weekend—Pk of Generator Future Of Site Developments:N/A Source of Trip Generation Rates:1TE 9th Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: • None:kla Pass-by trips:N/A Internal trips(PUD):NIZA Transit use:N/A Other.NIA Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements:2017 Methodolosv&Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates:Collier County traffic counts and 2014 AUIR, Site-trip generation: OTISS—1TE 9s'Edition Trip distribution method:Engineer's Estimate—as approved in the Conditional Use TIS —refer to Fig.2.on next page Traffic assignment method:project trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate:historical growth rate or 2%minimum Project Turning Movements:site access turn lane analysis—refer to Fig.3.on next page 4a §Ja Page3of6 } Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 120 3 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—T!S—June 2015 Fig.2—Project Trip Distribution by Percentage o-1 it,Cam, r` PNII.N-CT IMP uo uun twoNBP fly PCNCENiNCE 140 `1 INJOr Csu.aY CP e Fig.3—Project Turning Movements Map by Percentage 'Cr) Q� In+nwuol N .o<:. icurpatnol PRC.R:CT IUPHINC BY PEfl01Y9 PPP �'l'� T BY PEPCEPTRCE 4154 40 A Page 4 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 121 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 20I5 Special Features:(from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations:hI/,1 Sight distance:N/A Queuing:N/A Access location&configuration:N/A Traffic control:MUTCD Signal system location&progression needs:N/A On-site parking needs:N/A Data Sources:CC 2014AUIR:CC Traffic Counts Base maps:N/A Prior study reports:N/A Access policy and jurisdiction:N/A Review process:lVLA Requirements:Ni/ Miscellaneous: ILA Small Scale Study—No Fee_ Minor Study-$750,00 x Major Study-$1500.00 Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections-$500.00 each All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign-off on the application. SIGNATURES Norvwaw TrebLLcocle, Study Preparer--Norman Trebilcock Reviewers) Applicant Page 5of6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 22 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—T!S—June 2015 1 s Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review,Analysis Review,and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodoloev Review-$500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement,including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study"determination,written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement,and written confirmation of a re-submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County,if needed. "Small Scale Study"Review-No Additional Fee(Includes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation,distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review"-$750 Fee(Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes:optional field visit to site,confirmation of trip generation,distribution,and assignment,concurrency determination,confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off-site improvements within the right-of-way,review of site access and circulation,and preparation and review of"sufficiency"comments/questions. "Major Study Review"-$1.500 Fee(Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency revkwsI Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination,confirmation of committed improvements,review of traffic volume data collected/assembled,review of traffic growth analysis,review of off-site roadway operations and capacity analysis,review of site access and circulation,neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates,and preparation and review of up to two rounds of'sufficiency"comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review"-$500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the'"Wier Study Review"and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the"Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews"-$500 Fee) Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Page 6 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 123 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 { Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition (4 Sheets) 1 4f Y { { { 1 1 } Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 24 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SOP—TIS—June 2015 Proloat Nam,. Aubpllix-Monday Juno 2015 No: Oats 6n3/2016 City: Otate&Provinco: ZIp1Poslal Cade: Country: Client Nance: Analyst's Name: Edition: ITEd6M 9111 Edition Land Use Sirs Daily AM Pb IV PMPOIt 1 __ Ently Bait Enby ate; soy lib•OMwMualos !270.29"' 495 495 - 116 as M 00 RadueOan 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nan-pan-by 498 495 115 50 29 es Tell 490 495 116 10 29 M TTYlMductlon • 0 0 0 0 i 8 Teel Internal • 0 0 0 0 I 0 Total Peu.by 0 0 0 0 0 0 TWANorrpan.9y 495 410 115 ZO 29 M f0 MOM.Fast Oras Hoar Awe Period Setting ✓ Data provided by ITE Specify the Independent Variable,Time Period,and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis.To record any notes.click Add Notes above. Project Name: Autoplex-Weekday June 2015 it Analysis Name: IAM Pk Hr Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total V Warehousing (1000&q.FeetGroen ail 278.26 I,Weekday,Peak Hour L_JI Fleet Fit(LOG) v li Ln(T)=0.55Ln(X)+1.88 115 39 145 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 125 I I Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 • Period Setting J Data provided by ITE Specify the Independent Variable,Time Period,and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis.To record any notes,click ' Add Notes above. I Project Name: Autoplex-Weekday June 2015 Analysis Name: Daily 1 i Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total E 1 Wa ehousing 1000 Sq.Feet Oroea I(jryry 27926 Weekday v Average j0 O 956 496 495 991 j 1 . 3 Period Setting of Data provided by ITE Specify the Independent Variable,Time Period,and Calculabon Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips J generated in the analysis.To record any notes,click ^ Add Notes above. j Project Name: Autoplex-Weekday June 2015 1 Analysis Name: II3M Pk Hr Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total 150_ __. _.— 1000 Sq.Feet Gross JJ� 278.28 Weekday,Peak Hour Best Flt(LOO) v IN ii 11 11 $ Warehousing �...----...__._._-.------.I I-........_...--.---._-___ Ln(T)=0.64Ln(X)+1.14 29 86 115 1 1 1 1 I 1 i t 1 Treb€Icock Consulting Solutions,PA Page J 26 F 1 f. i Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 t 1 Project Name: Autoplex-Weekend-June 2015 No: • Date: 6113/2018 City: StateiProvince: ZIplPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edkton: ITE TOM 9th Edition Land Use Size Weekend-Saturday Weekend-Sunday Entry Exit Entry EXN 420-Marina 189 r') 19 24 33 16 1 Reduction 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 t Pass-by 0 0 0 0 s Non-pass-by 19 24 33 16 s Total 19 24 33 LI6 • Total Reduction 0 0 0 Total!Memel 0 0 0 Total Pass-by 0 0 0 a Total Non-pace-by 19 24 33 a (1) Bean i i 1 t 1 1 I 1 t. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 127 3 { I 3 I 4 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—June 2015 Period Setting ., Data provided by ITE Specify the Independent Variable,Time Period,and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis.To record any notes,click Add Notes above. Project Name: Autoplex-Weekend-June 2015 Analysis Name: I Weekend-Saturday Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total us 420-Marina Berths uI 1i69 I Saturday,Peak Hour v Atn repe ;J C) 0.27 1911' 24'' 43" (0)indicates size out of range (1)indicates small sample size,use carefully. Period Setting ✓ Data provided by ITE Specify the Independent Variable,Time Period,and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis.To record any notes,click Add Notes above. Project Name: Autoplex-Weekend-June 2015 Analysis Name: Weekend-Sunday Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Li, 420-Marina 159 Berlhs UI „,1 liunday,Peak Hour I Average 1131 d 0.31 33411 164' 49(11 (0)indicates size out of range (1)indicates small sample size,use carefully Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page j 28 I 1 i Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—US—June 2015 fi I I 1 1 1 t Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits (2 Sheets) i E 1 4 I i i 1 lF} t i 1 c 1 ! i I 1 7 1 i 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 129 a I i Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within Briarwood PUD)—SDP—TIS—lune 2015 / " 1 AI'loll Ave --1 r- T: 10% 117Z. ,, .5-...' 5 . N to 0 lo% !OUTBOUND' 0 a , .zr Hotly's:,Ave P-ogres 4 A. PROJECT TURNING I '..!. ...-- -t• ... MOVEMBITS MAP I BY PERCENTAGE norrww.e.Ave 'q. --3 Ontaee rt 4. 40% ,• C -..,. IL,Al 41.411 tr Ave tomtit Si ,..., ... .-: 40% ,-• ACC0511 1 C T , , I. . .. 60% . ,,, , t 7,- ,w rok 7.-2 .3 'k 9rAn:* 4 '''0% 20% 20% :4Cnt jt...14ta. Radio 1#41fi 41 4,I 4."""71!• '' 20% 20% 1 - -- Access 21 .,0. ,„ t ::. ,,....1:, .... ...ail 17vd 'Fv L a", 0" - ,.", `.41.3.• ,,A,..7), - ;41"7i .."krtr,-i 1 . ■ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page I30 Premiere Auto Suites of Naples(within BrIorwood PUD)—SDP—DS—June 2015 0 0 5 N in .._ 0 P oq,pcc Ayr PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENTS MAP BY ASVPM PK HR - 1-Amie,..1,- --7 a 1AM=46;PM=121 INBOUND ... 'illettin se Ave AM=12;PM=34 OUTBOUND II. r 1 , AM=12;PM=34 , AM=46;PM=12 - _ z '".AM=18:13M=52 : . 1..1 , 1. AM=23;PM=6 zei r : 1AMa123;PM=5 .1 """ ' - ,too mil at.J6 Radio rtd Plbl , N , R111101 ;41 I 1 AM=23;PM=6 1 1 4O = kathy A a ve ' Catl Nvd i 1 - - "Pt .* , __-• !,..- ,.. .... %not- Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA P a g e I 31 DE DAVIDSON F N G I N F F R t N G 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 • Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 F: (239)434.6084 www.davidsonengineering corn MEMORANDUM April 14, 2015 TO: Mike Sawyer,Collier County Growth Management,Zoning Division FROM: Jessica Harrelson,Project Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Frederick Hood,AICP,Senior Planner RE: Briarwood PUDA PL20150000178 A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 14, 2015 at the Briarwood Clubhouse. The meeting was properly advertised in the Naples Daily News and started at 5:30 pm. The following individuals associated with the review and presentation of the project were present: • Mike Sawyer,Collier County • Frederick Hood, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Josh Fruth, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Jessica Harrelson, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Christian Andrea,Architectural Land Design 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 applicant Premier Auto Suites of Naples for a PUD amendment application. • Per the 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 project. • Here with me tonight are Christian Andrea with ALD; our landscape architect, Josh Fruth with Davidson Engineering;our project engineer and Jessica Harrelson with Davidson Engineering;our project coordinator. • Michael Sawyer 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 10 DAVIDSON o The project location is situated at the northeast corner of the intersection of Livingston and Radio Roads within the Briarwood PUD(Ord.95-33)and is 15.97 acres in size. o Inside the Briarwood PUD this property has been set aside for non-residential uses and has the designation of Community Commercial. o The subject property inside of Briarwood is bordered on its northern and eastern boundaries by native preserve and both single and multi-family residential tracts. • Purpose of the PUD Amendment: o We are seeking three changes to the PUD that are all specifically related to the Community Commercial property. o The first is to provide the applicant the ability to develop the automotive garage condominiums as proposed. o The use, as accepted by County review staff and the Planning Commission with the previous Conditional Use application is based on the conditional uses in the existing PUD zoning.Those uses are outlined as: • Private Clubs • Commercial and or Private parking lots and garages. o Secondly,the application seeks to increase the maximum floor area for this specific use from 20% to 40%. This increase keeps the proposed footprint as it was originally proposed,but now takes into consideration the full interior floor area space based on the County's interpretation of floor area for this project. At the last planning commission hearing the inadequate floor area to allow this use to proceed was brought up. To alleviate that deficiency, the planning commission suggested that we apply for a PUD amendment to address the floor area increase for this specific use. o Thirdly, we are also seeking to provide architectural review for all commercial buildings within the Community Commercial District to be reviewed per the Collier County architectural review standards. • Project Details: o The current maximum square footage permitted by the PUD for the commercial area is 139,131 square feet. o The proposed footprint for the buildings on-site is 198,446 square feet. (59,315 square feet over what's approved). o The total proposed square footage inclusive of mezzanine areas planned within, equals 262,046 square feet(63,600 SF of mezzanine). Page 2 of 10 DE P Sq;!T RI ill o As some of you have seen from the site plan in previous meetings or have talked to me via telephone,the proposed use of the project is for the construction of individual, luxury and privately owned garage suites in several buildings on the site. o These private garage suites are being proposed for the purpose of individual owners to store and admire their vehicular collections. o There will be a total of 159 units available in 9 buildings of varying sizes throughout the property,with an associated development office building for the individual owners. o The development's office building will be provided to members of the auto suites community. This amenity area, and all common areas within the project will be for the sole use of owners and their guests.The community, once constructed,will not be open to the public. o The maximum height permitted for building on-site is limited to 30 feet zoned height above finished grade. • Buffering and Setbacks: o Where the project is adjacent to residential uses, we are proposing a 15 foot wide landscape buffer that is required by the land development code.Where residential units are adjacent to the proposed development a code required wall will be provided for additional screening within this landscape buffer. o Along with the provision of the required buffer, we have placed several gate and fence locations where the proposed buildings leave an opening to increase security for the development. o As with the previous conditional use application, we are still proposing to leave as much useable vegetation that already exists where the project will be next to residential areas within the buffer areas. o The vegetation that will be removed from these areas will be exotic and invasive plants. Once they are removed,the applicant will supplement vegetation as required by the land development code's landscape buffer requirements. • Access(Traffic): o The project, when finished,will use the existing driveway access points that are present on Livingston and Radio roads. No new vehicular access points are planned. o Per the traffic impact statement that we were required to prepare,a total of 63 pm peak hour trips are being proposed if we utilize the warehouse land use code as presented in the ITE manual for trip generation. This would equate to a daily proposed evening trip generation between Monday and Friday. Page 3of10 DE DAYDo71 o Utilizing the more appropriate Marina land use code per the ITE manual, a total of 43 Saturday and 49 Sunday trips would be proposed for the whole day.That number of trips is more appropriate when considering the proposed use and its operation. o Because of the nature of the project, we will likely anticipate less trips but we have provided in the traffic impact statement what we believe will be the maximum. • Wrap Up: in summary o We believe that the proposed use will be less intensive than a majority of the permitted commercial uses. The proposed Lowes hardware store that was originally proposed had a pm peak hour trip generation of 239 trips, and that is with considering pass-by trip reductions. Pass by trips is a reference to vehicular trips that would otherwise already be traveling on the adjacent roadway(s) o The proposed number of units has not changed from the previous conditional use application.We are still proposing 159 units.The purpose of asking for the maximum floor area to be increased for this specific use is to consider all interior areas to be calculated. o The maximum height on structures remains at 30 feet zoned height. o The project will not be open to the public. o The access that is located at Skelly Road will remain gated and will be for emergency vehicles only. o No new vehicular access points are being requested. And with that,I will do my best to answer and questions you may have." The following questions/comments were given by the attendees. 1. If the TIS was prepared as"warehouse",wouldn't that be industrial? Why do you believe the TIS land use can be compared to a "marina"? Fred responded: Not necessarily. This is how we look at house the traffic will be coming on and off the site. It does not mean it will be that type of a land use. Fred explained that as with boats,they don't get taken out every day and compared it to the nature of this project that the cars will not be taken out/driven every day. He also explained the project is proposed to generate less traffic than what was previously approved for the site(Lowe's). 2. These are really more like clubhouses or"man caves"? Guys are going to hang out with their buddies and play music. Fred responded: It depends who you are. If you a car enthusiast,or you want to invite friends over to watch a game. Some people will be using it only to store their vehicles. It's up to the individual buyer. 3. Will people be working on their cars here? Page 4 of 10 DE `'DDS DD Q41 Fred responded: This is not an industrial type use where cars are going to be worked on. This is for storage only. 4. Are traffic lights being proposed? Fred responded: No traffic lights are proposed. 5. Can I have a copy of the notes? Most information is "over my head". Fred responded: Yes,these are my notes but you can have a copy of them. 6. Is there a picture of the rear elevation? Fred responded: Yes we do(Fred showed the audience rear elevation.) 7. Will we see the units from Livingston Road? They look like bunkers. They are ugly. Fred responded: 8. How long are the buildings? Fred measured the buildings for the audience. 9. So that's three times the size of the previously proposed Lowe's? You are using a lot more area? Fred responded: Yes we are using more area than a Lowe's,but this development will not have the same traffic,lights or noise that Lowe's has. Attendee responded: Let's not talk about Lowe's. It was never built. 10. Are there lakes proposed? Stormwater is going to the roads? Fred responded: No there are not any lakes proposed. Fred showed an exhibit to the audience & explained the stormwater management system. Josh Fruth responded: We already have an Environmental Resource Permit to do the work proposed for the stormwater management system. 11. What is the proposed vegetation and plantings? Are you going to preserve the lovely slash pines and some of the existing vegetation? The plantings look skimpy and needs the"spirit"of Collier County. Do you plan to get rid of the existing Slash Pines? Christian Andrea then came up to the front. He showed his planting plan to the audience while pointing out the proposed plantings and areas. He went into detail on what vegetation is proposed. He explained the site's buffer requirements. He also stated that the proposed development may affect the success of the existing Slash Pines and they would most likely be eliminated from the site. We are open to suggestions on enhancing the landscaping. Page 5 of 10 DE PAMPA 12. What are the prices of the units? If I had a luxury car, surely I would have a house& security to accommodate my cars. What is the alternative if these units don't sell like you think they are? Fred responded: Looking at a quarter of a million dollars per unit. Other developments in the country that are similar to this project have done very well and twenty percent of the proposed units are already"reserved': 13. How many motorcycles will be allowed? Fred responded: We are only discussing the use right now, but are open to discuss what will be allowed in each unit. Mike Sawyer assisted with some of the conditions for approval that were recommended during the Conditional Use and will be added to the PUD. 14. Will anyone be on-site to enforce rules in the development? Will there be anyone there to make sure there is no dumping of oil in the lake? Fred responded: Right now no one is proposed to physically be on-site. The site will have a high- tech security system and cameras. Josh responded: What stops you guys from dumping oil in the lakes? There is really no way to answer that question. It is common sense. 15. Do the garages have drains in the floors? Fred responded: We are treating this like it's a home for your car. 16. These tracts of land are zoned "community commercial" to benefit the residents in Briarwood. Residents want to see a strip plaza/light retail use with doctors'offices,restaurants,etc. There is an access from Skelly Road so that the residents of Briarwood could access this property. We have gone from the benefit of Briarwood to the benefit of no one. Lowe's was not the only retailer looking at that property. Lowe's dumped it due to only have one egress and on ingress. No large retailer will build on that parcel. Where can we view other developments like this? Fred responded: Chicago and Minnesota. 17. What is stopping someone from living in the units? Fred responded: In the draft Association Documents there is language that precludes anyone from living in the units. 18. Does that mean you cannot sleep there over night? Josh responded: That is correct. The units are uninhabitable. Page 6 of 10 DE 19. Do the units have bathrooms? Fred responded: The do have water closets proposed in each unit. Fred then pulled up the conditions of approval,being added to the PUD,and read them to the audience. 20. Will flushing of boat engines be allowed? Fred responded: That is something we can discuss,but that is something that you can do at your house right now. And this is an automotive storage. 21. Will this development be phased? Fred responded: Yes one phase. 22. if you don't sell out,will the buildings just be empty? Fred responded: That is something we are not anticipating. 23. Will lifts or elevators be proposed? Fred responded: We are not proposing any elevator or hydraulic lift. They can use the roll up lifts. 24. Are sound systems are not allowed outside, but are they allowed inside? Fred responded: Yes,they can do the same thing with sound system in their units that you can do in your home. 25. I don't understand all of these questions. I am for the project. I don't want a gas station or a strip plaza. We can all have a party in our homes. You have the right to drive everyone crazy where you live. 26. How do you voice your opinion to vote yes or no to the project? Mike responded: Show up at the CCPC and BCC hearings. You will be notified by mail of the dates. 27. Will the development have an association? Fred responded: Yes just like any other condo association they too will have an association. 28. What is the different in the F.A.R.from the last meeting to what is proposed now? Fred responded: When looking at the total square footage from last time,it was just the footprint included at around 28%. At the hearing,we were told we had to include the mezzanine areas and that put us at 36-37%. The footprint has not changed. 29. What else can be done with the buildings if the project fails? What downside to you guys see to Page 7 of 10 DE D YD EN INUE f SRING ON this project? Fred responded: 20%of the project is already reserved and there is a desire for these types of units In the Naples. There is a laundry list of uses allowed in community commercial. I don't see any negatives 30. So,you don't know if the project will be built in phases or all at once? Fred responded: One phase is proposed. 31. Will there be lights on-site? Fred and Josh responded: Code mimimum commercial required lighting. Similar to a Publix parking lot. The lighting has a shield on them,they will not shine on your properties. 32. Who will be responsible for maintaining the grass,the buildings and exterior? Fred responded: There will be an association that will be responsible or the maintenance. 33. What percentage has to be reserved or sold to start construction? Fred responded: By law we can't pre-sale the units. 34. This is not being financed by a bank? Fred responded: That is correct. 35. When will you have the wall and landscaping done? Fred responded: The perimeter has to be done first. 36. Did the developer look at any industrial properties? Josh responded: He might have but this is the property that he chose. 37. Looking at the"Community Commercial"term- how do you define this as commercial? There is no benefit for Briarwood residents. How do you define this as commercial? Fred responded: Within the PUD Document,conditional uses"private garages&private clubs"are allowed as the PUD stands right now. County Staff states this is not a residential use. The planning commission voted unanimously that this use is allowable on this property. Josh responded: These units are uninhabitable so therefore are commercial. That is the easy answer. There are all levels of commercial. 38. You are requesting Collier County to eliminate the Briarwood Architectural review for this project? Page 8 of 10 DE` DDA-R F 9J! Fred responded: We are requesting that Collier County allow us to meeting their architectural standards and take the architectural review out of the hands of 8riarwood. The last time we tried to go through this Briarwood Architectural committee, we have yet to get a response back. 39. Why are you using black olive trees? Christian responded: Most clients prefer black olives over oaks trees. The trees are nice and full. They hold their leaves quite well. He said there are other canopy trees to choose from and it's a personal preference. Christian explained planting young trees Is cheaper so more can be planted and you need to look at the long term success of the trees. 40. I'm not happy about seeing high walls. Look at Livingston Road-it is full of walls. They are never cleaned. Who will take care of the maintenance of the walls? Fred responded: The Property Association will be in charge of the maintenance. 41. Will each floor plan be the same?What about the exteriors? Fred responded: No the floor plans will not be the same and then showed the exterior renderings. 42. Is it proposed that each unit will look the same? Fred responded: Units will be built to the owner's liking. 43. Will there be irrigation? Christian responded: Yes. 44. What happens if the plants/vegetation dies? Fred responded: Call code enforcement. Mike Sawyer responded: He explained they can call code enforcement. 45. Since the units have bathrooms,where are the sewer lines proposed to be located? Josh then showed the location of the proposed sewer lines on the exhibit. He also showed the tie- in locations. 46. Bottom line-you need more landscaping. Fred responded: I think we can handle that and we will discuss it. 47. There is 650 ft of buildings. Are there no breaks or air space? Josh responded: We are using the buildings as security so people can't walk though. It's a secure facility. That is the original intent. Christian responded: We are using landscaping to create that visual break you are looking for. Page 9of10 DE PARR TIT1 48. Are there back doors? Can things be stored outside? Fred responded: Yes there will be emergency back doors and no things cannot be stored outside. 49. Are there Property Association Documents drafted? Fred responded: They are drafted but not finalized. 50. Can royal palms be added to the entrance of the development? Christian responded: They look nice but they do not do anything for your buffering. 51. What about garbage? Fred responded: Dumperster enclosures will be on-site and showed the location of them on the site plan. if you have trash you have to take it to the dumpster. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:50 pm. End of memo. Page 10 of 10 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be impacted by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per attached letters and or property owner's list, which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. (Signature of Applicant) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this J..)) day of t'u(OA 2015 by T1 tt — ,who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. nature of No ary Public) a.�ce\sc)r\ (Notary Seal) Printed Name of Notary JESSj/CA.AARAELSOM �St�++1 Ybolts,•Sim 1fj MY a? : Comminloo Ff 019254 •�;i;K knON Dim*NNOOaI tkatAYu., Briarwood PUDA-PL20150000178 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting held by the Applicant, Premier Auto Suites of Naples, LLC, represented by Frederick E. Hood, NAPLES DAILY NEWS AICP,of Davidson Engineering,Inc. Published Daily Tuesday,April 14th @ 5:30 p.m.at Naples,FL 34110 The Briarwood Clubhouse 335 Skelly Road,Naples,FL 34104 . Affidavit of Publicati Please be advised that the Applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development State of Florida Amendment to the Briarwood PUD with Collier County Growth Management, for a project known as Premier Auto Suites (Petition Number: PL2015.0000178). This Counties of Collier and Lee Amendment proposes to allow conditional uses 3.)Private clubs;and 5.)Private parking lots and garages per Section 6.2 C within Tracts A & B (Community Commercial) Before the undersigned they serve as of the Briarwood2 PUD.Additionally,this application seeks to increase the maximum floor area from 209'0 to 40%,for the limited conditional uses that are the subject of appeared Daniel McDermott who on I this application within Tracts A&B and to allow architectural review of Tracts A&B Inside Sales Manager of the Naples D: (Community Commercial)to be consistent with the Architectural Review Standards of. newspaper published at Naples,in Co the LDC at the time of SDP and or Plat approval. distributed in Collier and Lee countie- — attached copy of the advertising,bein: i,14 PUBLIC NOTICE IRONWOOD PROJEOT "°u " LOOATION 0380 in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 tin -RRADIO now on March 30,2015. twtan Affiant further says that the said Na „ \ ei PAW published at Naples,in said Collier 0 seao newspaper has heretofore been contin 1 pp/pK � Oer) ° � County,Florida; distributed in Collier each day and has been entered as secc said Collier Coun' onwe etv�ne office in Naples,in sax - � - ■ year next preceding the first publican WE VALUE YOUR INPUT advertisement;and affiant further say Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the promised any person, firm or corporal presentation and discuss the project with the Owner/Developer,Davidson Engineering, commission or refund for the purpose Inc.and Collier County Staff.If you are unable to attend this meeting but have questions publication in the said newspaper.; or comments,they can be directed by mall,phone,fax ore-mail by Tuesday,April 14th to the individuals listed below: 7 ,, ---- - ____(.1 t- / .. 6 > • r Frederick E.Hood,AICP Michael Sawyer, Project Manager (Signature of affiant) Davidson Engineering, Inc. Collier County Growth Management '' 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 Naples,FL 34104 2800 N Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239.434.6060 Phone: 239.252.2926 Is v in to an su scribed before me Fax:239.434.6084 Fax: 239.252.6358 1st da p 2015 Email:fred @davidsonengineering.com Email: MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net No.231123999 March 30.2015 r (Signature of notary public)_ _ _ _ _ A o „ivies, CAROL POLIDORA l 3a' ,� Notary Public•State of Florida ( j• i, Commledon S FF 185830 t "-'MyComm.Ex$IIDec 2B,2018 I BoAINI eONNonalNotlyAnn. dmINIBIWIIPENINIplIpir ow..Replipqr NO WEi P I -- a ow In uo if) „ 4 . tl. R i,-, ,,, 4111g 1 � i 1 � t tiN `� 1 ) oern �, 0- `4,- ,% V ct� ,M�' � M � if° ri 4-, -. 7ZN . .,. c- . tp .q-4 P; ,n; ►rj :), -.. t. .s.. ,k .i N `.. 2 -Z S --6 /-; t J R ..?, t) (".(-7 § •'' s4d \- � cl" 5 = I � s v N - 4 = ;4. 4 \ 4. ''L ... 44 44-1 t •zz,%' -:' o � 5 `� - M ) r ti rd a Oo E L \t„ '? --2__, p 0 e, -.1 LLI .6 k(I ' vt X' _(N) <all k- KN 0 cr _.) 2 ■131 ‘ .--•vi .......V R. - i, ,' -g q ., 3 't-k 4 . .. . v \. N - e o ` V w , c .,7 0 ! E Z.- . 1 1 E 2 Ni scz, 41 1 m Z � , 04 M tb co r- co o o . N t'7 s' 1€) CO F- co Zo I A o 0 \ 1 � , ( M —Q xI\ ° N � Wo- z � � � � � ro � aa �� � � mnT >- _ moo , „r , o $ pi � oW �1 ,` c- -T N, t �� ( M I I t k1/ 1./ (t) z" w ("' 0s. -4- N NP in r 1 Cl)In 19 IN') ° ..1 -■<-; —5 '' ,- (... st A, 4:i , . "-it. ".' °6 i o N v4.) °C " `L sA I. t S ii.: o a- x - QJ co Sa 0 pi-4 - - ,$) 0 tro 1 .11. 4 (N, V ,., t..) * i i.1/4.4. .'r 1° 0 ■S) '1 ill Ni) 4 ,: t, c-11 ,. d ito 0 .,/ A , c -- crt ,-1 eel 41) k % (r 1 Ts.; v, ki .- 43 a fYl E ) 1 a r g s 4:i 4 "i"-)f,_1.‘ ''\< J i 1 4 0 0 ,-- .- .. 1 ,.„, , = . • 1). „ ;:r. ,d sr,J --ek. ,, 4, t,__ 4_ -0 1 !,\Z".f: ... (_34 't-4 N-J.,_ 0 8 p - .-:. ___. -).-- ,.... r.c, c--)c< ..-- er,) Le N ,,,,, •N-0 UV. . 2 rAt Ti; 13) 6,.. 4 t-,4- z-k-j) ,a ) \.;., NN44.1, 8 i -e V .:Q b N N N N N 8 8 N 8 8 C') M M M A 2 8 M F WI I ( en g 1 cr ,,,. - ' - 1 i, ,..9 , 4„. \..a q In el. 'til PI ij , 0 kt, i t 0 f' ; S7, „z , .)' A c< 4 {ids, s V ' ..? 1 Q) 1 --'i -,28 . , e, ,::i3 ( t), J)4) Lt- 4 8 \1A. C < . -- &-- , ia .f ,, ._ i cn' l'°- CIPe\14 . 4 ' -'"13 , E 0 a Q w l g R. k---;_. t -., 1 ,, A C .3 - 4(.4 --- I\ ,.- 4 -?„) 45, 1 E0 4A i. T__,ii- 'n ; )' %4- x, i i_,.., , ,.s p i . rEin I Ci9\4' e' '.9.11). 0 Leawood Lakes Homeowner's Association Southwind Mobile Village Briarwood Property Owners Association 2340 J&C Blvd 302 Fillmore Street 934 Marble Dr. Naples,FL 34109 Naples,FL 34104 Naples,FL 34104 Foxfire Community Association of Collier Maplewood Homeowner's Association, Inc. Flamingo Estates Civic Association County,Inc. 490 Crossfield Cr. 4516 Parrot Avenue 1030 Kings Way Naples,FL 34104 Naples,FL 34104 Naples,FL 34104 Naples Mobile Estates Community 277 Cape Sable Drive Naples,FL 34104 i 1 v l 1001 THOU,LLC 171 COM LLC 171 COM LLC 11 VERNON RD 800 HARBOUR DR 800 HARBOUR DRIVE HARROGATE NAPLES,FL 34103-0000 NAPLES,FL 34103---0000 NORTH YORKSHIRE UNITED KINGDOM, HG28DE-0000 354 DOVER LLC 374 DOVER LLC 391 DOVER LLC I 1047 TNOLI DRIVE 1047 TIVOLI DRIVE 1047 TIVOLI DR NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0863 I • 4389 SNIDER ROAD LLC 4755 ENTERPRISE AVE LLC 603 CROSSFIELD CIR LAND TRUST 4383 WOODLANDS PLACE 4765 ENTERPRISE AVE %PIKUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BLUE ASH NAPLES,FL 34104-7042 5290 GOLDEN GATE PKWY ENGLAND, 45241--0000 NAPLES,FL 34116-0000 1 SOB CROSSFIELD CIR LAND TRUST 707 TETON LLC 903 DOVER TRUST %PIKUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 6044 DUPONT AVE S 720 GOODLETTE RD N STE 304 5280 GOLDEN GATE PKWY MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55419-0000 NAPLES,FL 34102-5656 NAPLES,FL 34116--0000 956 TIVOU CT LLC A JAMES INTERNATIONAL LLC A TO Z NAPLES LLC SCHWARZWILDWEG 20 4720 ENTERPRISE AVE STE 508 3838 TAMIAMI TRAIL N SUITE 300 FALKENSEE NAPLES,FL 34104-7046 NAPLES,FL 34103--0000 GERMANY, 14812---0000 AARONS,JEROME H=&MARSHA E ABBOTT,HERBERT STEVEN • ABEND,CHARLOTTE A 1437 N HIGHLAND AVE FRANK RICHARD GOOD O'HEARN,LAWRENCE R PITTSBURGH,PA 15208-1161 525 PRODUCTION BLVD 991 TIVOU LN NAPLES,FL 34104-4763 NAPLES,FL 34104-0831 1 a ACAT,ERIN SPOKES ADAMEK,KARL=&INGEBORG ADAMS,CHERYL M JOSE MANUEL ACAT PERLA LOHERHOFWEG 1 325 DOVER PL APT 101 6000 SHERIDAN AVE S A 6800 BREGENZ NAPLES,FL 34104-m72 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55410-2211 VIENNA AUSTRIA, --0000 ADAMS,REBECCA J AGNEW FAMILY TRUST AGUIRRE DE GUTIERREZ,MARIA L 721 CROSSFIELD CIR 9411 SHOUSE DR 378 DOVER PL APT 702 NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 . .. VIENNA,VA 22182---1817 NAPLES,FL 34104-0700 1 AIELLO,MICHELLE MONTANA ALADICS,STEVE ALBANESE,SAM=&JESSIE 442 DUNDEE CT CINTHIA VIDAL 8 EMPIRE ST NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 839 BRIARW00D BLVD MARKHAM,ON NAPLES,FL 34104-0801 CANADA, L3P 6B8--0000 i ALBANEZ,VIOLETA M ALCOTT,JOHN k8 ROSE ANNE P ALLIANCE MOVING INC $ 821 CRESCENT AVE 379 DOVER PL APT 801 472 PRODUCTION BLVD SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94110-8044 NAPLES,FL 34104- 0824 NAPLES,FL 34104-4723 i P E 1 ALLIANCE MOVING INC ALTINKEMER,KEMAL=&CHERYL L AMBRUS,PETER &JILL 225 12TH ST SE 4201 EISENHOWER RD 7 PRINCETON DR e NAPLES,FL 94117-3870 LAFAYETTE,IN 47905-8426 SHAMONG,NJ 08088-8695 ii ANDERMAN,BARBARAA ANZURES,CECILIAM APLETCHEF,DIMITRI I 131 NAPA RIDGE WAY JEFFREY L ANTLE EVELYN J TUTHS NAPLES,FL 34119-4612 300 MOORING LINE DR 250 1ST AVE APT 11D NAPLES,FL 34102-4743 NEW YORK,NY 10009-2614 s i ARBITRIO,BARBARA ARSENAULT,JOHN R ASIEDU,ROSEMARY A 42 PINNACLE ROCK RD 326 DOVER PL APT 204 931 GREEN CIRCLE STAMFORD,CT 06903-3133 NAPLES,FL 34104---0873 ORANGE,CT 06477--0000 f i I. ATKESON,IRENE AURELLO,MARIO P=&MARIA L AVDIC,MUHAREM=&MUNIRA I! 1549 VINTAGE LN 2200 MAJESTIC CT N 1825 S OCEAN DR#703 1 NAPLES,FL 34104--0805 NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 HALLENDALE,FL 33009---0000 AVOLA,RONALD H=&CATHERINE M B&D ASSOCIATES BACHINI,PAULA DEBORAH i 343 DOVER PL APT 101 PO BOX 939 JEAN=&ROBERT A VENO NAPLES,FL 34104-0838 MURDOCK,FL 33938--0000 88 RED FOX DR FEEDING HILLS,MA 01030-2822 BAGGIO,IDA BALL,ROGER BILL=&VICKY J BANDIT,TONY L=&CHRISTINA L 20 SERENA LANE 290 STANHOPE CIR 172 STANHOPE CIR GUELPH,ON NAPLES,FL 34104--0810 NAPLES,FL 34104---0807 CANADA, NIL 1E7-0000 BANNING,VICTORIA 1. BARBUTO,JAN P■8,ROBERT J BARCHELLER,BRADFORD K L 5071 SUNBURY CT 4141 FAMILY CIRCLE CT NAOMI BYNG NAPLES,FL 34104-4731 NAPLES,FL 34104--7080 842 BRIARWOOD BLVD i NAPLES,FL 34104--4784 1. x I s BARCLAY.DAVID=&SALLY BARKER,CLAIRE ELIZABETH BARONE,RICHARD A THE WILLOWS JULIAN M&CLAIRE N BARKER 270 STANHOPE CIRCLE RIVER WALK 2 BUBBLESTONE RD NAPLES,FL 33942-0000 SUTTON COURTENAY,OXFORDSHIRE OTFORD SEVENOAKSKENT • ENGLAND, OX144NR--0000 UNITED KINGDOM, TN145PW--0000 BARR III,JAMES A=&JONNIE K BARTON.PETER A FORTESCUE BATES,THOMAS D 3135 42ND TER SW ELEANOR BARTON 384 DOVER PL APT 501 NAPLES,FL 34116--8352 32 ELM GROVE RD NAPLES,FL 34104-0821 GROVE HOUSEEALING ENGLAND, W53JJ--0000 1 g BATSON,MILTON C BAYS,MICHAEL SHANE BCB ENTERPRISE GROUP LLC LEORA E BATSON 1882 TERRAZZO LN 3698 ENTERPRISE AVE#100 103 SYCAMORE LN NAPLES,FL 34104---0825 NAPLES,FL 34104-3808 FRANKFORT,IL 60423--1636 a 1 1 I BEACHER,RONALD S=&BRENDA BECKER,DAVID Rs&REBECCA J BEGOSSI,JUUO G=&PAULA PO BOX 485 824 MOUNT HOOD CT 294 STANHOPE CIR METUCHEN,NJ 08840-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4794 NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 1 BELLUCCI,MATTHEW G BENDER,CHARLES W&VALERIE BENHARDT,JEREMY=&MARGERY JILL A CROCKER 278 STANHOPE CIR 792 TETON CT 841 BRIARWOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34104--0810 NAPLES,FL 34104-4798 NAPLES,FL 34104-4785 3 BENNETT-KING,KIMBERLY BERARDI,AGNES M BERDELL,STANLEY J=&JUDITH A I NICOLE M BENNETT 138 DOLORES DR 124 BERDELL DR 842 BRIARWOOD BLVD IRWIN,PA 15642-5519 KITTANNING,PA 16201--5202 NAPLES,FL 34104-4784 I BERES,JEFFREY N BERGMAN,FREDERICK J BERGUM,K }. 10043 ESCAMBIA CT SUZANNE C BERGMAN 274 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34120--0000 734 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 1 I 1 BERNHARDT,MARY A BLASI,JOHN A=&DEBRA A BIERLEIN INVESTMENT LIC 7812 VERONA WALK BLVD 7802 MARTINO CIRCLE 12000 BAY CITY RD t NAPLES,FL 34114--0000 NAPLES,FL 34112--0000 MIDLAND,MI 48642--0000 I 1 1 I BILLS,KENNETH J=&MARY J BLACKEBY,DAVID R BLACKFORD,PETER M=&SANDRA A - 208 FOXTAIL CT C!O GERMAN SERVICES 251 CYPRESS WAY W NAPLES,FL 34104-4909 3980 RADIO RD STE 208 NAPLES,FL 34110--1180 NAPLES,FL 34104-3748 f BLACKFORD,PETER=&SANDRA BLANEY,JOHN PATRICK-.4 CATHI BLOKSMA,HENDRIK=&ELFRIEDE I. 261 CYPRESS WAY W 349 DOVER PL APT 201 2529 DAY LILY PL NAPLES,FL 34110-1180 NAPLES,FL 34104-0859 NAPLES,FL 34106-3012 3 i I BLOKSMA,HENDRIK=&ELLY BLUE SPARK ELECTRIC INC BLUM,KONRAD 1 2529 DAY LILY PLACE 1276 FOREST AVE 1994 E CROWN POINTE BLVD NAPLES,FL 34105-0000 NAPLES,FL 34102--0000 NAPLES,FL 34112-3854 BODO,ELUORADA BOONE,RANDAL L BORAS,JOHN G=&DENISE E 132 STANHOPE CIR 1848 VINTAGE LN 8 FERRO DR NAPLES,FL 34104-0807 NAPLES,FL 34104-0804 EASTLYME,CT 08333--1514 i BURTON,JOEL BOSAHAUS INC BOSWELL,DAVID&NICOLE 359 DOVER PL#104 3960 RADIO RD STE 208 811 CROSSFIELD CIR NA PLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-3748 NAPLES,FL 34104-4782 i P I i 1 1 1 BOUDROW REVOCABLE TRUST BOVE,GEORGE=&NANCY BOYD CHRISTOPHER IAN 809 TETON CT 419 DUNDEE CT ANGELA RUTH BOYD NAPLES,FL 34104-0836 NAPLES,FL 34104--4776 5248 BRADQA CRESCENT BURLINGTON,ON CANADA, L7L 6W4-0000 BRADLEY,JAMIE BRADY,ROGER D=&SANDRA J BRAND,LINDA R 330 DOVER PL APT 102 538 CROSSFIELD CIR 460 DUNDEE CT NAPLES,FL 34104.-0870 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 BRAND,RALPH=&LYDIA BRANKA,ANDRZEJ=&ALEKSANDRA BRASH,MONA 443 DUNDEE CT 398 DOVER FL APT 101 391 DOVER PL#203 NAPLES,FL 34104-4776 NAPLES,FL 34104--0702 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 1 t BRAUBURGER JR,ROBERT BRENNAN TR,JOHN R-&KAREN E BRENNAN,JIOHN R=&KAREN E VICTORIA URSULSKIS BRENNAN REV TRUST 4980 TAMARIND RIDGE DR PO BOX 868 UTD 6/13/08 NAPLES,FL 34119-0000 MARCO ISLAND,FL 34146-0886 4980 TAMARIND RIDGE OR NAPLES,FL 34119--2828 1 BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP $ 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE NAPLES,FL 34104--0373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3973 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 1 3 3 BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP 3027 ARNOLD AVE 1100 COMMERCIAL BLVD STE 118 3927 ARNOLD AVE NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-7007 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 5 BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE 1100 COMMERCIAL BLVD STE 118 I NAPLES,FL 34104-3973 _.. NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-7097 BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP 1 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 1 BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE NAPLES,FL 34104--3373 NAPLES,FL 34104--3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 q i 1 E ? I. 1 I I BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP i 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE € NAPLES,FL 34104--3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP BRIARWOOD DEVELPOMENT CORP BRIARWOOD LAND TRUST 3927 ARNOLD AVE 3927 ARNOLD AVE 2011 TERRAZZO LN l r NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-3373 NAPLES,FL 34104-0828 1 i BRIARWOOD PROPERTY BRIARWOOD PROPERTY BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD f NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104--4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 I I BRIARWOOD PROPERTY BRIARWOOD PROPERTY BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC I 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 BRIARWOOD PROPERTY BRIARWOOD PROPERTY BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 3 I i 1 BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS 1 ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC 1 336 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 1 BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS f ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104---4787 1 BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC 336 SKELLY RD 935 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD NAPLES,FL 34104--4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION INC 1 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD 335 SKELLY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 I i BRIARWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BRITT,RICHARD B BRODTMANN,BETTINA ASSOCIATION INC BRITT,LAEH D PO BOX 3039 335 SKELLY RD 406 DUNDEE CT NAPLES,FL 34108-0000 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-4787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 i 1 t 1 i 1 II BROWN,JAMES=&ANN BROWN,JOEL E_&JANINE F BRUCE,MARY A UTTLESHAW 927 THOU CT 20171 EAGLE GLEN WAY ; TIGHNABRUAICH NAPLES,FL 34104-0838 ESTERO,FL 33928-3033 I ARGYLL r SCOTLAND, PA21 2BB-0000 BRUNA BARZOTTI RESIDENCE TRUST BUDDEN,TIMOTHY J BUETTNER,JAMES WW8.MARY C 7761 SPEEDVALE AVE E CHRISTINE M BUDDEN 148 STANHOPE CIR GUELPH,ON 8753 7Th AVE NAPLES,FL 34104---0807 CANADA, N1H BJ1-0000 PLATTEVILLE,WI 63818-1102 : i a BURGER,AU DIE BURRELL,LEON F BUSCH,ANDREA D--&RICHARD P 1463 VINTAGE LANE TONI B TROMBLEY 5041 SUNBURY CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 556 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-4731 NAPLES,FL 34104-4728 E 3 BUSH,JUSTIN D BUSH,JUSTIN D BUSH,LINDA J I 8188 VALIANT DR 8188 VALIANT DR 873 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE NAPLES NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 , 34104-0000 BUTLER,MARTIN BUTTERWORTH,DALE A.&JULIE BUYS,PHILLIP L=&KAREN M JOAN MORGAN 6598 MONTEREY POINT 701 COLDSTREAM CT 127 ARDILAUN PORTMAR NOCK NAPLES,FL 34105--0800 NAPLES,FL 34104'4734 DUBLIN 1 IRELAND, —0000 • BYRNE,SALLY K BYRNE,SALLY K BYRNES,JOHN J=&MARIE R EDITH A KNOX 380 DOVER PL APT 1302 863 GROSSFIELD CIR 1 380 DOVER PL UNIT 1102 NAPLES,FL 34104-4707 NAPLES,FL 34104--4792 f, NAPLES,FL 34104-4707 i I 1 I 1 CAFASSO,ROBERT W CALDWELL,STEVEN R=&ETTA J CALLEJAS,JERRY 15 WOODCHESTER DR 3038 DESERT PALM CT DONALD E POGORSKE WESTON,MA 02493-1433 DUMFRIES,VA 22026---4820 1044TIVOU LN I NAPLES,FL 34104--0830 p s 8 I i 3 CANTOR,CIPRIAN C CAPPELEN,KEVIN 0 CARD,KATIE 699 CROSSFIELD CIR HEATHER CAPPELEN 384 DOVER PL APT 604 NAPLES,FL 34104--4728 938 TIVOLI CT • • NAPLES,FL 34104-0821 NAPLES,FL 34104--0834 w CARELLA,HELEN CARLISLE,IAN=&CHRISTINE A CARNEGIE,JANETA EVELYN M CARELLA 30 CHESTER RD WORSDALL,TIMOTHY M RUNCORN 10 ROBYNS WAY SEVENOAKS 1 SUTTON WEAVER R 5090 COLDSTREAM LN 1 NAPLES,FL 34104--4736 CHESHIRE KENT I UNITED KINGDOM, WA73EB---0000 ENGLAND, TN133EA--0000 F CARON,PHIUPPE=&CATHERINE CARR,WLLIAM Y=&BREEDA CARREIRO,JOSE J=&MARIA A 2814 TAMIAM1 TRL N$711 1255 N STATE PKWY APT 7B 730 CROSSFIELD CIR 3 NAPLES,FL 34103-4409 CHICAGO,IL 80810---8208 NAPLES,FL 34404--4757 i 1, 1 i 1 k 1 i 1 CARRERA,JAMES CARROLL,MARK T.&MIDORI M CARTER,ANDREW-4,PHYLLIS 112 FOXTAIL CT 1495 VINTAGE LN C/O GERMAN SERVICES,INC, NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0820 3960 RADIO RD NAPLES,FL 34104-3741 i CASANOVA,JACQUELINE=&LOUIS CASEY,PAUL=&KIMBERLY CASPAR INVESTMENT INC • 1128 TIVOLI DR 223 PINE COVE RD SALZGASSE 7 NAPLES,FL 34104---0864 BURLINGTON,ON KOELN - L CANADA, L714 1W1--0000 GERMANY, 50687-.0000 I • 1 CASSIDY,ALAN CASTERLINE,STEWART F=&JEAN M CASTILLO,REINALDO 3 LORNE HOUSE 2 WALDRIDGE RD 986 THOU CT 464 DUNDEE CT t DURHAM NAPLES,FL 34104-0834 NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 ENGLAND, DH2 3AB-0000 I u CATALDO,RALPH H=&MARIE CAZALY ET AL,PHILIP ANDREW CCF LP ' 256 STANHOPE CIR CIO GERMAN SERVICES %HOMETOWN AMERICA MGT LLC I NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 3960 RADIO RD STE 208 150 N WACKER DR STE 2800 NAPLES,FL 34104-3746 CHICAGO,IL 80606--1810 CCPP INC CECIUONI,ROBERT Pm&MARY ANN CELSIUS INVESTMENTS LTD 1 1100 5TH AVE S STE 201 816 MOUNT HOOD CT %MARTIN BROWN PLLC NAPLES,FL 34102-6407 NAPLES,FL 34104-4704 P 0 BOX 11000 NAPLES,FL 34101--0000 1 CERON-FUENTES,JOSE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CERVIZZI,PETER V I TIRSA A CRESPIN-CERON CWALT INC ALT LOAN TRUST IRENE C KALOGERIS 934 BRIARWOOD BLVD 56 BEATTIE PLACE SUITE 110 742 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL. 34104-0000 GREENVILLE,SC 29601-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 1 CESPEDES,ROSE MARIE M CHAPMAN,JOHN G 13.4 SUSAN A CHATTA,INDERJIT S MARCO A HERRERA MONASTERIO THE MOULDINGS SHAMINDER K CHATTA 349 DOVER PLACE#203 13 THE MEAD 697 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 MOLLINGTONOXFORDSH IRE NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 UNITED KINGDOM, OX171DN--0000 CHENEY,MARY J CHENEY,SUSAN JANE CHICKERING,CORY 607 CROSSFIELD CIR 152 STANHOPE CIR 359 DOVER PL APT 204 NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 NAPLES,FL 34104-0807 NAPLES,FL 34104- 0560 1 CIOFFI,MICHAEL CIT PROPERTIES INC CK LAND VENTURES INC PNC CENTER ATTN ROBERT SANTUCCI 1072 GOODLETTE RD N 201 E 5TH ST STE 1700 2121 N OCEAN BLVD APT 505E NAPLES,FL 34102--6449 CINCINNATI,OH 45202---4156 BOCA RATON,FL 33431-7837 CK LAND VENTURES INC CK LAND VENTURES INCORPORATED CLARK PROPERTIES IVMNT OP LLC 1072 GOODLETTE RD N 1072 GOODLETTE RD N 418 BRISTLE CONE LN NAPLES,FL 34102---5449 NAPLES,FL 34102-5449 NAPLES,FL 34113--8308 L 1 f CLARK,DAVID G=&ANGELA D CLARKE,DALE H CLEPPER,WILLIAM Fe&DIANE L 1 929 MARBLE DR BONNIE L BRISKY 1377 SARVER RD NAPLES,FL 34104-0818 994 TIVOU LN FREEPORT,PA 18229--1737 NAPLES,FL 34104-0815 l' COASTAL BEVERAGE LTD COBB TR,BARBARA ANNE COBB TR,BARBARA ANNE 4747 PROGRESS AVE C&S WAREHOUSE LAND TR UST C&S WAREHOUSE LAND TR UST NAPLES,FL 34104-7032 ITID 4/24/89 UTD 4/29189 ¥. PO BOX 1351 PO BOX 1351 NAPLES,FL 34108---1351 NAPLES,FL 34108--1351 F 1 COLATOSTI,LOUIS 0 COLEE,MELINDA P COLGAN,KAREN ANN MARY A NEGUA 218 FOXTAIL CT STEVE MARK COLGAN I 455 DUNDEE CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 17 USSON GROVE HALE I NAPLES,FL 34104-4776 ALTRINCHAMCHESIRE ENGLAND, WA159AE-0000 1 E. COLLEY,MALCOLM=&MICHELLE COLLIER CNTY COLDER CNTY 745 CROSSFIELD CIR C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 3335 TAMIAMI TR E,STE 101 WATER SEWER NAPLES,FL 34112---0000 3301 TAMIAMI TRL E BLDG F NAPLES,FL 34112-4902 1 COLLINS,STEWART=&SANDRA COMETTE,MICHEL R=&MAUREEN J CONDOM,TERENCE P.&MADELEINE CHARLENE ALANA MCDOUGALL 113 FOX DEN CIR 193 PARK ROAD NICOLE ELIZABETH S MCATEER NAPLES,FL 34104-4972 KEYNSHAM 12 CARRICK DR COAT BRIDGELANARKSHIRE BRISTOL I UNITED KINGDOM, ML5 1JX--0000 ENGLAND, 8531 IAU-0000 I CONDON,TERENCE Pa&MADELINE CONSOLINO,JOHN J=&CARRIE M COONEY,E ROBERT=&SUSAN 0 1 193 PARK ROAD 5201 BRIXTON CT 220 FOXTAIL CT KEYNSHAM NAPLES,FL 34104-4782 NAPLES,FL 34104-4909 BRISTOL ENGLAND, BS31 AU-0000 COOPER,BRUCE L=&MYRA E COOPER,DENNIS COOPER,IAN=&LORRAINE ANNE 390 DOVER PLAPT302 491 CROSSFIELD CFR 23 BURLINGTON GROVE NAPLES,FL 34104-4793 NAPLES,FL 34104-4721 SHEFFIELD ENGLAND, S17 3PH--0000 s s COPPERTOP LLC COPPOLA,SALVATORE COPPOLA,SALVATORE 3200 TAMIAMt TRL N STE 200 PASQUAUNA COPPOLA PASOUAUNA COPPOLA NAPLES,FL. 34103-4108 3 WEATHERVANE WAY 3 WEATHERVANE WAY 1 DIX HILLS,NY 11746.8128 DIX HILLS,NY 11748-8128 CORDERO,JAVIER CORREALE,PAULA CORRIGAN ET AL,DENIS MICHAEL KAREN LOPEZ 343 DOVER PL APT 202 CI0 GERMAN SERVICES,INC. 879 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0838 3980 RADIO RD STE 208 NAPLES,FL 34104--4734 NAPLES,FL 34104---3748 I COTTER,MICHAEL Se&MARY ELLEN COX,CHRISTOPHER C=&USA M CRAIG HERZER EXEMPT TRUST 184 FOX DEN CIR 396 DOVER PL APT 103 3240 70TH ST SW NAPLES,FL 34104-4971 NAPLES,FL 34104-0702 NAPLES,FL 34105-0000 1 i e I 1 CRAUMER,CLAUDETTE W CREW ELIZABETH A=&BRUCE K CRISCI TR,GARY T i 1 775 CROSSFIELD CIR 2355 CUMBERLAND DR CARL M AMBROSE TR € NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 WHITE LAKE,MI 48383--2159 CRISCI-AMBROSE REAL EST TRUST UTD 5/2/08412 DUNDEE CT NAPLES,FL 34104--4775 t I- t CROFTS,SHARON C CSERVENYAK,•1tVEJOHN CULBERTSON,EUGENE J i S C CROFTS Cl/DOMESTIC TRUST 940 WOODSHIRE LN M4 222 FOXTAIL CT 13302 S E 61ST ST NAPLES,FL 34105-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4909 BELLEVUE SEATTLE,WA 98006-0000 CULLEN FAMILY IRREV TRUST CULLAVAN,LORRAINE E CUNNINGHAM,GAYLE L I 42 OLD STAGE RD 281 FOX DEN CIR 819 MOUNT HOOD CT t CHELMSFORD,MA 01824-4529 NAPLES,FL 34104--4964 NAPLES,FL 34104-4794 • CURRY,ROBERT L=&CHERYLE A CVITKOVIC,CHARLES A=&JANET S CZAJKA,JOHN&ANN 99 NEVIN RD 3071 LEGIONVILLE RD 1878 TERRAZZO LN WEYMOUTH,MA 02190-1810 BADEN,PA 15005-9678 NAPLES,FL 34104-0825 1 1 D&G PROPERTY&INVESTMENTS LLC PACK HOLDINGS LLC D'ALESSANDRO,DANIEL T 789 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE 582 BLUEBERRY PLACE JEAN M D'ALESSANDRO NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 FRANKLIN LAKES,NJ 07417--0000 103 BENTLEY DRIVE PITTSBURG,PA 15238-0000 i t 6 1 DALTON,SHAUN--&CASSIE DALY TR,KATHLEEN C DALY,EDWARD A=&CAROLE A 5430 WHITTEN DR KATHLEEN C DALY TRUST 306 PINE ST APT 3 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 3417 ASTON CT LOWELL,MA 01851-3158 CINCINNATI,OH 45209-2370 1 DAMPIER,ROBERTA DANNO,ROBERTA DARSES,BERNARD I CHERYL KRAUS DAMPIER 1915 TERRAZZO LN 349 DOVER PL APT 204 424 DUNDEE CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0827 NAPLES,FL 34104-0859 NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 DATTA,SOUMMYA DAVE F HINKEL REVOCABLE TRUST DAVID L SWIFT DEC OF TRUST 238 STANHOPE CIRCLE 550 CROSSFIELD CIR 7919 GRAND BAY DR 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4725 • NAPLES,FL 34908-•7558 1 3 DAVIS,TONYA J DAVISON,ELIZABETH DAWSON,JENNIFER 124 STANHOPE CIR 5100 SUNBURY CT 391 DOVER PL APT 204 NAPLES,FL 34104-0807 NAPLES,FL 34104-4730 NAPLES,FL 34104- 0701 g F 1 i DAY,KYLE R=&CATHERINE H DAY,KYLE R=&CATHERINE H DE JOHN,LOUIS=&PHYLLIS D I 4778 RADIO RD STE 808 704 SAINT ANDREWS BLVD 220 BLACKMAR ST I 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-1117 NAPLES,FL 34113--8934 NEWARK,NY 14513-1204 i 1 1 1 DE LMT,DEREK DEBO,STEPHEN R=&NINA H DEDOUSIS JR,JOHN.&ELAINE A 33 YONGE ST 1519 VINTAGE LN 4 MORGAN WAY KINGSTON,ON NAPLES,FL 34104-0620 SCOTCH PLAINS,NJ 07078--2900 CANADA, K7M8Y8-0000 1 5 1, DEDOUSIS,JOHN T=&MADELINE DENNIS,RICHARD C &SUSAN M DIEFENTHALER,MARK S=&LAURA S I 1178 BRIARWOOD CT 204 STANHOPE CIR 4311 13TH AVE SW 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-0833 NAPLES,FL 34104-0809 NAPLES,FL 34118--6126 1 1 I DIGIORGIO,THOMAS=&LORRAINE DILEO JR,FRANK As&.ROBIN A DIONNE TR,JOHN B 1 288 STANHOPE CIR 807 MOUNT HOOD CT JOHN B DIONNE TRUST t NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 NAPLES,FL 34104-4794 MD 4/8/98 1 318 FOXTAIL CT 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-4998 DODGE,KELLY E DOHERTY,LOIS A-8.BRIAN G DOLINE,STUART L=&CHERYL L i 916 BELVILLE BLVD 40703 N HARBOUR TOWN CT 3971 GULF SHORE BLVD N PH 305 1 !: NAPLES,FL 34104-7883 ANTHEM,AZ 85088-1828 NAPLES,FL 34103-2100 1 1 DOLL,PHILLIP E DOMZALL,RAPHEL L DONALDSON,WILLIAM R 5111 BRIXTON CT MARION C KESSEN 710 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104--4782 813 MOUNT HOOD CT NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 NAPLES,FL 34104-4794 DONOVAN,PHILLIP•&ROSALIND DORFMAN,RUTH 0 DOUVILLE,ROBERTJ 368 DOVER PL APT 1105 718 CROSSFIELD CIR 503 PHILODENDRON NAPLES,FL 34104-4712 NAPLES,FL 34104--✓4757 PUNTA GORDA.FL 33955-1046 DOVER PLACE INC DOVER PLACE INC COVERS PLACE INC PO BOX 8725 PO BOX 8725 PO BOX 8725 NAPLES,FL 34101-8725 NAPLES,FL 34101-8725 NAPLES,FL 34101-8125 i j1 DOWGIEWICZ,JAN ANTHONY DOYLE WESSON PLUMBING INC DOYLE WESSON PLUMBING INC I • BARBARA ANNE DOWGIEWICZ 4778 RADIO RD#703 4778 RADIO RD#703 IIII� 1499 VINTAGE LANE NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 1 DOYLE,MAURICE J DUFF,JAMES&.CHERYL DUFFY,JAMES R=&JANITH 0 1 GENEVIEVE ANN DOYLE 106 LEAWOOD CIR 527 CROSSFIELD CIR#53 1 982 TIVOU CT NAPLES,FL 34104--4132 NAPLES,FL 34104--4726 s a NAPLES,FL 34104-0834 1 1 1 i DUNLEAVY,ROBERT P=&KAY G DUNN,MEREDITH A DUPROW,JEFFREY T I. 8525 STONERIDGE CT WILLIAM VERDONK 551 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE ; WARRENTON,VA 20187-9378 747 TETON CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 1 NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 I i 1 1 DURIGON FLORIDA TRUST DWYER,MARIANNE EARLEY,JOHN A=&HELEN V 1 ZADUK PL 705 CROSSFIELD CIR 60 BEECH RD GUELPH,ON NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 GLEN ROCK,NJ 07452-1501 CANADA, N1G0A7-0000 C EDSON,RICHARD L=&MARY V EDWARDS,STEPHEN T=&CARY L EGAN,KENNETH M=&AMANDA J 4253 LIGHTHOUSE LN 1431 VINTAGE LN 5051 BRIXTON CT NAPLES,FL 34112-6420 NAPLES,FL 34104-0822 NAPLES,FL 34104-4782 1 1 i I EISOLD,JANA ELIAS,RASHAD H=&LYNN M ELLIOTT,DAVID L 384 DOVER PL APT 503 242 STANHOPE CIR EILEEN P DUFF a NAPLES,FL 34104-0821 NAPLES,FL 34104--0810 5040 SUNBURY CT 1, NAPLES,FL 34104-4730 • f I , ELLIOTT,USA J ELUS,ALAN Rte,OLWYN M EMERY,SIMON D J=&GILLIAN A 587 CROSSF1ELD CIR 4 OAK DR 90 RIDGEWAY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 KINNERTON LONG ASHTON. 1 FUNTSHIRE BRISTOL i I UNITED KINGDOM, CH4 9ST--0000 ENGLAND, —0000 Ii I i 1 ENGLAND,PATRICIA M EPLER,JAMES DAVID ESCUDERO,CESAR AUGUSTO 590 CROSSFIELD CIR LINDA JANE NEDWEDEN 2014 TERRAZZO IN NAPLES,FL 34104-4725 1923 TERRAZZO IN NAPLES,FL 34104-0826 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 i 4 I x EVANS.GARY MICHAEL EVANS,MARY M FALLON,BARBARA RACHAPORN EVANS 695 CROSSFIELD CIR 528 WINTER ST 373 DOVER PL APT 902 NAPLES,FL 34104---4726 FRAMINGHAM,MA 01702--5829 NAPLES,FL 34104-4759 it l I FAY N SHARP REVOCABLE TRUST FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN FEDERAL NATL MRTG ASSOC 499 CROSSFIELD CIR PO BOX 650043 3900 WISCONSIN AVE N W = NAPLES,FL 34104-4721 DALLAS,TX 75265--0043 WASHINGTON,DC 20016-0000 1- $ FENELON,MICHELLE L FERNANDES,VICTOR G=&FILAR D FERRARA,THOMAS=&BARBARA 387 DOVER PL APT 1001 1002 TI VOLI IN 167 ERIE DR NAPLES,FL 34104-4716 NAPLES,FL 34104-0814 NAPLES,FL 34110-1301 • FIELDHOUSE,LARRY A=&BETTY J FIELDHOUSE,LARRY A=&BETTY J FIELDMOUSE,LARRY A=&BETTY J 4725 RADIO ROAD 4725 RADIO RAOD 1595 DOLPHIN LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34102---1521 1 FIUTI,VALERIA V FIRST CITIZENS BANK&TRUST CO FITTON TR,DAVID L 9 250 STANHOPE CIR 100 EAST TRYON RD DAVID L FTTTON REV LIV TRUST I NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 RALEIGH,NC 27603-0000 UTD 11107/02 314 FOXTAIL CT NAPLES,FL 34104--4998 } x 2 1 1 1 1 1 FITZWATER,MATTHEWS FLAGE,KENNETH J=&LESLIE A FLAME,MARY A ELIZABETH A FITZWATER B82 BRIARWOOO BLVD ALAN PAUL GENIS 455 HANCOCK ST NAPLES,FL 34104-0800 15 CARI CT BROOKLYN,NY 11233--0000 DEKALB,IL 80115--1014 FLETCHER,EILEEN M FLETCHER,TIMOTHY A=&LISA A FLOMERFELT,JON A=6 NANCY A WILLIAM F MACMASTER 835 COLDSTREAM CT 289 STANHOPE CIR 1435 VINTAGE LANE NAPLES,FL 34104--4734 NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 I NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 f 1 FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY FLUEHR JR,THEODORE J FORBES,GRAHAME / PROPERTY TAX•PSXIJB JOANNE B FLUEHR PHIUP RICHARDSON i 700 UNIVERSE BLVD 17 S LONG BEACH BLVD 8 HUNTERFIELD PARK JUNO BEACH,FL 33408-2657 SURF CITY,NJ 08008--4878 GOREBRIDGE MIDLOTHIANMIDLOTHIAN 1 SCOTLAND, EH23 4AY-0000 1 i FORC,KAZIMIERZ J FOSTER,JAMES J FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN DAISY FORC 680 CROSSFIELD CIR OF COLLIER CTY INC 2007 TERRAZZO LN NAPLES,FL 34104-4725 1030 KINGS WAY 3 NAPLES,FL 34104-0828 NAPLES,FL 34104-4986 3 t FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN OF COWER CTY INC OF COWER CTY INC OF COLLIER CTY INC 1030 KINGS WAY 1030 KINGS WAY 1030 KINGS WAY NAPLES,FL 34104-4986 NAPLES,FL. 34104--4988 NAPLES,FL 34104-4988 FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN FOX FIRE COMMUNITY ASSN OF COLLIER CTY INC OF COLLIER COUNTY INC OF COLDER CTY INC 1080 KINGS WAY 1030 KINGS WAY 1030 KINGS WAY NAPLES,FL 34104-4988 NAPLES,FL •34104--4988 NAPLES,FL 34104--4988 FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSN FOXFIRE VILLA II ASSOC INC OF COLDER CTY INC OF COLLIER CTY INC %NEWELL PROP MGT 1030 KINGS WAY 1030 KINGS WAY 5435 JAEGER RD STE 4 NAPLES,FL 34104--4988 NAPLES,FL 34104-4986 NAPLES,FL 34109-5802 FOXLEY,COUN=&JULIE FRAGIONE,JOSEPH C=&NANCY M FRAME,JOSEPH E . 97 CHAPELTOWN RD 1491 VINTAGE LN 583 CROSSFIELD CIR BROMLEY CROSS NAPLES,FL 34104-0820 NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 BOLTON UNITED KINGDOM, BL779LZ--0000 FRANCIS,SHERRY L FRANCO,CARL=&JEANNINE FRANK,CATHY ANN 723 COLDSTREAM CT 6888 HICKORY PONTE DR 188 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-4734 LIBERTY TOWNSHIP,OH 45044--9824 NAPLES,FL 34104--0807 FRONTI NAN,VICENTE=&GILLIAN FULFORD,KENNETH SCOTT=&LINDA FULLER,ISAAC 0 I 33 FELLS AVE 108 FOXTAIL CT ALBIGAIL LEIGH FULLER 1 MEDFORD,MA 02165-1958 NAPLES,FL 34104---4996 899 COLDSTREAM COURT NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 I I 3 1 II I FUMERO-RIOS,GUIU.ERMO FUNK,VINCENT C=&DONNA M FUQUEN,ALIR10=&GILMA E JOSEFA 0 FUMERO 1005 TIVOU LN 757 CROSSFIELD CIR 258 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104--o831 NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 GABERT,RICHARD GAFFNEY,JOHN M GALANO,FELIPE=&ELADIA V PO BOX 2271 DONNA M BUTLER GALANO-FUNERO,JOSEFA OSHKOSH,W 54903-2271 381 HARVARD CT 282 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-8798 NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 GAMBARDELLA,JACK Lr&ANITA GANTZERT,MICHAEL-&CYNTHIA GARBY,DONN M=&USA R 1373 BOSTON AVE 1079 TIVOU DR 713 CROSSFIELD CIR BAY SHORE,NY 11706-4748 NAPLES,FL 34104. 0863 NAPLES,FL 34104---4750 1 GARDNER,GEORGE E GARRASTAZU,YULEXI GARRITY,SPENCER LAURITZ MERIDA R GARDNER 114 LEAWOOD CIR 207 STANHOPE CIR . 575 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-4132 NAPLES,FL 34104---0811 t NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 s I 1 F, GARROW,LARRY J=&TONI P GAYGA,ALEXANDER M=&LORRAINE GEARING UP LLC 1 982 MILITARY TURNPIKE 43 GALLOPING CIR 1922 5TH ST S PLATTSBURGH,NY 12901-0000 BELFORD,NJ 07718-1324 NAPLES,FL 34102-7512 T i • GENTIL,RICHARD J GIBE,BRIAN C GIBSON,JASON LEE NICOIA.1 GENTIL CARLY ANN POINTS GIBB JENNIFER LYNNE GIBSON 993 TIVOLI CT 888 SAN MARCOS BLVD 900 BRIARWOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34104-0638 NAPLES,FL 34104-3632 NAPLES,FL 34104-0802 GIRSE,MICHAEL J GILD ENTERPRISES OF FL LLC GOLDSTEIN-CORL,JEAN KENARETTE CYNTHIA SABATINO 12652 BISCAYNE CT RONNIE GOLDSTEIN 1. 337 DOVER PL APT 203 NAPLES,FL 34105-0000 8111 SPANISH OAKS LN `' NAPLES,FL 34104--0861 NAPLES,FL 34119-0000 7 GOMES,FRANCISCO R GONOS,ROBERT GOODSPEED,WILLIAM H GOMES,ISIDRA F 114 STANHOPE CIR CONSTANCE D GOODSPEED 1047 BRIARWOOD BLVD - NAPLES,FL 34104-0812 348 DOVER PL APT 201 NAPLES,FL 34104-0866 NAPLES,FL 34104--0839 1 1 GORDON,IAN GORI,LIUANA GORROD,STEPHEN C=&CAROLE E 1 MICHELE LEWINGTON 328 DOVER PL#201 9 BADGERS HOLT p PO BOX 320 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 YATELEY 2430 VANDERBILT BEACH RD*108 HAMPSHIRE �# NAPLES,FL 34109---2854 ENGLAND, 46 8YE--0000 t GOTHARD,DAVID 0=&REBA J GOTTSCHALK,EDWARD D=&ARDELLE GRAHAM,STEVEN J # PO BOX 146 771 CROSSFIELD CIR ANN-MARGARET GRAHAM CARY,NC 27512-0146 NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 5050 BRIXTON CT NAPLES,FL 34104-4781 1 I Y 1 t 1 a i GRAICHEN,HANS PETER=&GERDA GRASSO,BRIGITTE U GREEN,FRANK J=&CAROL L C/O GERMAN SERVICES,INC. 1522 VINTAGE LN 500 CROSSFIELD CIR 3960 RADIO RD STE 208 NAPLES,FL 34104-0804 NAPLES,FL 34104-4725 NAPLES,FL 34104-3748 GREGA,EMMA S GREGORY,COURTNEY H=&JUDITH A GREIFF TR,JAMES 0 401 DUNDEE CT 1887 TRIANGLE PALM TER JAMES 0 GREIFF TRUST I NAPLES,FL 34104-4778 NAPLES,FL 34119-3395 UTD 3/30/05 1020 TIVOLI LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0830 III I i GRIECO,JEFFREY S=&CHERIEA GRIECO,JENNIFER A GRIECO,JENNIFER A 1 730 BRIARWOOD BLVD 746 COLDSTREAM CT 745 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES,FL 34104-4784 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 € R P 1 I GRIECO,JOANNE M GRIFFIN,ROY K=&ELAINE R GRIMES,ELLEN CHRISTINE 1059 BRIARWOOD BLVD 863 GEORGE ST 867 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES,FL 34104--0866 PORT STANLEY,ON NAPLES,FL 34104--4734 1 2 CANADA, N511K1--0000 GUBBRUD,MARGARET GUERRA,COURTNEY D GU LOIN,GERALD A=&GLORIA A 1 4990 BRIXTON CT GUY GUERRA 2008 TERRAZZO LN NAPLES,FL 34104-4751 281 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-0628 NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 : 1 GULF COAST REMODELING&REPAIR GULFSHORE TITLE COMPANY LC GURAJAPU,JAGADISH PMB 250 3400 TAMIAMI TRL N JAYASREE MAROJU 4778 RADIO RD STE 804/805 NAPLES,FL 34103-3717 15461 CORTONA WAY NAPLES,FL 34104--4183 NAPLES,FL 34120-0878 N I GUTHIER,GERALD T=&JOAN M HACKER,CHARLES FREDERICK HALLFORTH,DAVID M=&LISA R I 523 CROSSFIELD CIR 1F 54 KANDI LEE HACKER 18515 PARK GROVE LN I NAPLES,FL 34104--4726 780 CROSSFIELD CIR DALLAS,TX 75287-5029 NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 HAMMERS JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST HANDELER,EDITH HANNA,PETER FOSSREDDER 23 A 1534 VINTAGE LN VERONICA CANNING a HAMBURG NAPLES,FL 34104-0804 19 LR TREES RD GERMANY, 22359-0000 MOUNT MERRIONOUBLIN IRELAND, —0000 1 1 HARHEN,JOHN G=&CYNTHIA 0 HARMS.ELSIE M HARPER,JOHN R-&MICHALINE 1103 TIVOLI DR 881 CROSSFIELD CIR 700 TETON CT NAPLES,FL 34104- 0885 NAPLES,FL 34104-•-4792 NAPLES,FL 34104-•-4798 Y a I HARRIS,JERRY LEE HART INDUSTRIAL OF NAPLES LLC HART,STEPHEN=8‘RENTHA D TAMMY JEAN HARRIS 902 SPANISH MOSS TRAIL 318 STANHOPE CIR 693 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34108-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0812 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-4792 1 f I1 a 1 3 i 1 HARTLEY,WILLIAM H HARTMAN,BRENTA=&LISA HASKETT,PAUL V=&LINDA L HARTLEY.ELIZABETH W 130 TOLHOUSE CT 531 CROSSFIELD CIR HARTLEY,MATTHEW MILTON,GA 30004-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104---4728 7 STENHOUSE MILL AVEEDINBURGH SCOTLAND, EH113LR--0000 HATTON,MARY C HAUNGS,JILL E HAVARD TR,MARY E 928 MARBLE DR 142 LAUREL AVE HAVARD FAMILY REV TRUST NAPLES,FL 34104--0817 MILFORD,OH 45150-1020 UTD 4/27/00 • 107 FOX GLEN DR NAPLES,FL 34104--5188 P I HAWKER,RUSSELL C.&PATR1CIAA HAWKINS,THERESE M HAYDEN,DORIS H 62 PINERIDGE DR 725 TETON CT 750 CROSSFIELD CIR WESTFIELD,MA 01086-4547 NAPLES,FL 34104--4798 NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 v 3 l I HAYNES,ANDREW C=&DENISE ANNE HEASLEY,DEAN A=&TINA M HEDISON TR,GLADYS T I THE BIRCHES 708 BRIARWOOD BLVD TD 10-2-91 2BA UPPER GOLF LINKS RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4784 124 FOXTAIL CT g' BROAOSTONEDORSET NAPLES,FL 34104-4998 4 ENGLAND, BH188BX--0000 HEIDEMA,WESLEY=&SANDRA HENRY,TODD HENSI-IALL,KEITH=&MAUREEN 1680 HIGH POINTE DR ANGELA PANCIERA 937 MARBLE DR ZEELAND,MI 49484-1484 184 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-0818 { NAPLES,FL 34104—.0807 's 1 HENSING,OLE BESTED HERBERT JR,WILLIAM J HIBBERT JR,ROBERT L=&JUNE K 1 ANNE KATRIN KLUGE DIANE M HERBERT 387470TH STREET COURT i WREDEWEG 9 359 DOVER PL APT 201 MOLINE,IL 81285-0000 i BERUN NAPLES,FL 34104---0880 GERMANY, 14089-0000 HICKS,ADRIAN L=&JANE C HICKS,JENNIFER T HIGGINS,PATRICK=&MARTHA C/O GERMAN SERV INC 2015 TERRAZZO LANE 1036 THOU LN 3980 RADIO RD STE 208 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0830 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-3746 HILTL COMM VEHICLES CORP HODGES,GARY S HOEFERT,KAREN I. PO BOX 2245 330 DOVER PL APT 204#H 438 DUNDEE CT NAPLES,FL 34108---2245 NAPLES,FL 34104-0870 NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 L e F HOLUDA,JANETTE L HOLLINGSWORTH,GLEN HOO TR,HUOMAN Am&GUIRINA H 326 DOVER PL APT 203 373 DOVER PL APT 904 THE HOO LIV/TR 8/2/2000 I NAPLES,FL 34104-0872 NAPLES,FL 34104-4759 2030 TERRAZZO LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0826 g 3 I HOOD,JOHN=&FRANCES C HOWARD,AMY HOIME,PHILIP=&LINDSAY CLARE 1486 VINTAGE LN 5088 POST OAK LN 12 MICHELDEVON GARDENS NAPLES,FL 34104-0819 NAPLES,FL 34106--4628 WHITCHURCH, T HAMPSHIRE ENGLAND, RG28 7JY-0000 i 1 1 I 1 I s HUDAK,ELfZABETH J HUGHES,DAWN RENEE HUGHES,JAMES R•&SHEILA M x. 2048 TERRAZZO LN 306 STANHOPE CIR 487 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-0828 NAPLES,FL 34104-0812 NAPLES,FL 34104--4721 S HURT JR,FRED R.&TAMARA 0 HUSSEY TR,JOHN W HUSSONG,RAINER 1023 TIVOLI DR JOHN W HUSSEY TRUST 5/7/90 GUTENBERG STR 53 1 NAPLES,FL 34104---0883 - 214 FOX DEN CIR 90513 ZIRNDORF NAPLES,FL 34104-4963 BAVARIA GERMANY, —.0000 9 HUTCHINSON,DAEFRANDA.1 HUTCHINSON,GEOFFREY A HUTCHINSON,GREGG T•&BARBARA i 569 CROSSFIELD CIR ALEXANDRA HUTCHINSON GEOFFREY Aa&ALEX HUTCHINSON 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 8695 ALESSANDRIA CT PO BOX 627 NAPLES,FL 34114-2702 NAPLES,FL 34108---0627 I I ,ANN INO,ROBERT IN CANTALU PO TR,FRANK INTERNATIONAL ASSET ESTAB HILARY FREITAS F INCANTALUPO REV TRUST 4720 ENTERPRISE AVENUE#507 18 CANTERBURY CRES BARBARA INCANTALUPO TR NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 TORONTO,ON B INCANTALUPO REV TRUST13700 SW 11TH ST CANADA, M9A5AS-0000 APT 401 PEMBROKE PINES,FL 33027-6947 i IRENE,JOSEPH A-&JO ANNE ITAMA DEVELOPMENT ASSOC LP ITHAKA HOLDING IV LLC 5091 COLDSTREAM LN 7 RABE LN 5150 TAMIAMI TM_N STE 300 NAPLES,FL 34104--4777 DONORA,PA 15033-1750 NAPLES,FL 34103-2818 } i. I J&A PARTNERS LLC J&N DUNNING PROPERTIES LLC J D&N S CRUCHET R/L TRUST i 242E 3RD ST 5500 COLLEGE HILL RD 411 WALNUT STREET#1891 HINSDALE,IL 60521--4221 CAMBRIDGE,OH 43725--8855 GREEN CV SPRINGS,FL 32043--0000 i a I JACKSON TR,STORMY D JACKSON,MARIA JACKSTADT,KRIS T=&MARY E JACKSON CHILDREN TRUST 812 COLDSTREAM CT WALDBILLIG,THOMAS=&ROSEMARY PO BOX 1338 NAPLES,FL 34104--4733 302 FOXTAIL CT MARCO ISLAND,FL 34148--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4998 • I 9( JACOB,JEFFREY M&LISA H JAESCHKE,MICHAEL=&CORINNA .JAFFE,HOWARD•&GLORIA 1 247 STANHOPE CIR %GERMAN SERVICES INC 359 DOVER PLACE 8102 • `� NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 3980 RADIO RD STE 208 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-3746 i I i . ; i JAN M DESAI REV TRUST OF 2008 JCB CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC JERVINIS,JOHN S.&MERRIN 447 1ST AVE N 7934 FOUNDERS CIR 6021 BRIXTON CT NAPLES,FL 34102-6908 NAPLES,FL 34104-5340 NAPLES,FL 34104-4782 JET REALTY LLC JIMENEZ,ENRIQUE=&ANA JIMMY PS BUTCHER SHOP& 1 TURKEY PLAIN ROAD 374 DOVER PL#804 DELI INC BETHEL,CT 08801-0000 NAPLES,Fl. 34104--0000 1833 TAMIAMI TR N 1 NAPLES,FL 34102-0000 I I 1 1 I 3 JOHN A CRAIG ENTERPRISES LLC JOHN I WIRICK TRUST JOHNSON TR,THOMAS A 010 CARPET DESIGNS INC 250 FOXDEN CIRCLE THOMAS A JOHN TRUST 121 10T11 ST S NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 UTD 7130109 NAPLES,FL 34102-8222 20085 W RUSTIC RIDGE DR NEW BERLIN,WI 53148--3000 I. JOHNSON,KENNETH W-&TONYA C JOHNSON,MARY ALICE JOHNSTON,RACHAEL NICOLE 5180 SUNBURY CT 354 DOVER PL 1451 VINTAGE LN NAPLES,FL 34104-4730 NAPLES,FL 34104--0867 NAPLES,FL 34104-0822 f a 9 3 i JONES,MELANIE CRAIG JONES,OBEN=&MARIA C JR NOMINEE TRUST d ROBERT B PRINTZ 5080 BRIXTON CT 55 POWDER HILL DR 1430 VINTAGE LN NAPLES,FL 34104-4781 BRAINTREE,MA 02184-5014 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-0619 1 i JUDD,CHRISTOPHER=&SHERRI J KABELLA TR,HELENE KAKIETEK,JANINA T t 248 STANHOPE CIR HELENE KABELLA REV/TR OF 2001 348 DOVER PL APT 202 NAPLES,FL 34104---0910 461 DUNDEE CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0839 NAPLES,FL 34104-4776 I 1 I 1 KAKKURI,DAVID C KAMERISTY,SERGEI=8,IRINA KARASEWICH,DEBRA L JACQUELINE A KAKKURI 8781 TRIBAL CT 623 BERKLEY ST i 1019 TIVOU DR LONG GROVE,IL 80047--5119 WINNIPEG,MB s NAPLES,FL 34104--0963 CANADA, R3R 1K1--0000 1 I I i KEEGAN,BRIAN KEEK,PATRICK KENNEDY,SCOTT P=&COLLEEN KATHLEEN M HOLL 9 RUE DE LAM,PERTHEIN 6171 BRIXTON CT 400 E RANDOLPH AVE APT 83 VENDENHEIN NAPLES,FL 34104-4782 MINE HILL,NJ 07803-3061 FRANCE, 67550.-0000 I 1 KENNETH E BRANDLE TRUST KESHOCK,ROBERT Jam,SHARON B KHALIL,GAMAL I 2008 ULLMAN AVENUE NW 554 BRIARWOOD BLVD 14 CHEMIN AMI-GRAND I SALEM,OR 97304-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4728 VESENAZ SWITZERLAND, 1222-0000 i KILLEN,CHRISTIAN E KING TR, I ,MARY KING,DONNA M 348 DOVER PL APT 203 STANHOPE CIR LAND TRUST 328 DOVER PL APT 202 NAPLES,FL 34104-0839 19 SPRINOVALE LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0873 LYNN,MA 01904--2516 i KING,HARRYETTA KJAER,TROND KLEIN,DIETMAR 1530 VINTAGE LN ARNFINN KNUTSEN ANNE-KATHERINE KLEIN NAPLES,FL 34104-0804 HOLUMSVEIEN 65 808 MT HOOD CT 4518 MANDAL NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NORWAY, -0000 1 1 KLIK,ALFRED R=&GAIL D KLINKERT,LEONARD WILLEM KMIETEK,JAMES E■&KATHERINE W v. 826 MOUNT HOOD CT NASIHA KLINKERT-MAJDANCIC 960 TIVOLI CT NAPLES,FL 34104--4794 HOGEWEG 48 C 2042 GH NAPLES,FL 34104-0834 s ZANDVOORT NETHERLANDS, —0000 3 E 1 I I i KNIGHTS OF HAWTHORNE LLC KOBASHIGAWA TR,KUNIKO SHIROMA KOCH,BRYCE FREDERICK t 2333 FORREST LANE K S KOBASHIGAWA SHORT F TRUST KRISTINE LEE KOCH NAPLES,FL 34102-7881 UTD 9/17/96 1447 VINTAGE IN 1022 KALIHI ST NAPLES,FL 34104--0822 1 HONOLULU,HI 98819-3434 I r i KOCH,MICHAEL=&SABINE KOEHLER,CONRAD K.&SUSAN J KOKORUDZTR,SUSAN %GERMAN SERVICES INC 3470 19TH AVE SW KOKORUDZ FAMILY TRUST . 3960 RADIO RD STE 208 NAPLES,FL 34117--6136 854 CALDWELL AVE NAPLES,FL 34104-3748 MISSISSAUGA,ON CANADA, L5HIY9--0000 KOTTKE,RICHARD Km&SANDRA A KRAJEWSKI,WALTER=&KRYSTYNA KRANITES,KATHRYN L 349 DOVER PL APT 102 51 SWAN ST 359 DOVER PL*E-203 1, NAPLES,FL 34104-0859 MALDEN,MA 02148-1956 NAPLES,FL 34104-0860 1 Y �I . f KRAUS,MARK R=d CHERIE B KREMER,HERBERT W=&BETTY L KRISTENSEN,SANDRA 437 DUNDEE CT 5141 N FORTVILLE PIKE 13 ALGONQUIN ST NAPLES,FL 3410.4-4776 GREENFIELD,IN 48140--8785 PITTSFIELD,MA 01201-1001 1 i KRUG,MARK A.&JEANNE H KRUSKIE,MARK&SHIELA KUBERNAT,SUE E I 14236 SAWMILL CT 571 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE RHONDA K MAYNARD PHOENIX,MD 21131-1838 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 129 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-0608 I 3 I 1 KUHN,KATHERINE F KUTHER,FRANZ PETER KYTHREOTIS,NICHOLAS _ 384 DOVER PL APT 502 ANNEUESSE KUTHER KYTHREOTIS,KLEONIKI is NAPLES,FL 34104-0821 DRESDENERSTR 60 764 CROSSFIELD CIR = KAISERSLAUTERN NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 GERMANY, 87683--0000 I 3 LABATTAGLIA,LEONARD LABATTAGLJA,LEONARD=&SUSAN R LAFFILAY,MARIE-ODILE SUSAN N ROSEN 109 FOX GLEN DR 562 CROSSFIELD CIR 1i 109 FOX GLEN DR NAPLES,FL 34104-5188 • NAPLES,FL 34104-4725 s NAPLES,FL 34104-5188 LAHEY,THOMAS LAHM,GEORGE E.&FRANCES T LAIRD,WILLIAM=&CAROLE ANN MARILYN TOWNSEND-LAHEY 701 CROSSFIELD CIR 2028 TERRAZZO LN 359 DOVER PL APT 103 NAPLES,FL 34104---4758 •' NAPLES,FL 34104--0826 NAPLES,FL 34104-0880 EALLATHIN,TOM W=&JANET LAMARTINA,ROSE ANN LAMBERT TR,RAYMOND J 125 FOX DEN CIR 685 CROSSFIELD CIR KRISTINE M LAMBERT TR = t NAPLES,FL 34104-4972 NAPLES,FL 34104--4792 RAYMOND J LAMBERT TRUST MD 2/04/092440 MENDON RD CUMBERLAND,RI 02884-3710 1 LAMIN ART,INC LAMIN-ART INC LANE,EILEEN a 1870 BASSWOOD RD 1670 BASSWOOD RD 4 NORE VIEW >�> SCHAUMBURG,IL 80173---6307 SCHAUMBURG,IL 80173--5307 LANGDON HILLS P ESSEX ENGLAND, SS1S6PH-0000 i 1 1 1 I LANE,EILEEN LANE,GUY TERENCE LANGE,SUSAN J GEOFFREY WARD INGRID ANNE MARIE LANE 380 DOVER PL APT 1303 GOMEZ FAMILY TRUST 4 NORE VIEW NAPLES,FL 34104-4707 4 NORE VIEW LANGDON HILLSESSEX LAGOON HILLSESSEX ENGLAND, SS18 8PH---0000 ENGLAND, SS188PH—0000 1. I LANZET,JEMMA LAPORTE PROP OF SW FL LLC LAPP,AARON Fm&DEIRDRE 0 313 FOREST HILLS BLVD 15118 CORTONA WAY 1931 TERRAZZO LANE r, NAPLES,FL 34113•--7552 NAPLES,FL 34120-0870 NAPLES,FL 341044 00-0000 t t. 1 E E S LARSON,GIORGETTE V LAVOIE CONSTRUCTION GP INC LAVOIE CUSTOM CARPENTRY INC 1 LE VINESS IV,JOHN F 4778 RADIO RD STE 707 6057 BERKELEY DR i 3 NOYES LN NAPLES,FL 34104-1121 NAPLES,FL 34112--6468 ATKINSON,NH 03811-2559 LAVOIE CUSTOM CARPENTRY INC LAWLER,KATHLEEN A LAWTON,GEORGE 3 4778 RADIO RD STE 707 385 DOVER PL APT 401 RONALD E LEECE NAPLES,FL 34104-1121 NAPLES,FL 34104. 0818 914 TIVOLI CT f NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 LAYCOCK,CLIVE F=&PATRICIA LBJ PROPERTIES LLC LEAWOOD LAKES HOMEOWNERS 33 BROCKHURST PARK 2652 LANDALE LOOP ASSN INC MARLDON THE VILLAGES,FL 32182-0000 PO BOX 111893 DEVON NAPLES,FL 34108--0129 ![ ENGLAND, TQ9 1LB-0000 t LECHNER,JOHANNES=&KERSTIN LEDEZMA,DAGOBERTO LEGRAND,M1CHEL=&CHANTAL VEILCHENWEG 14 1494 VINTAGE LN 19,CH.DES VIGNERONS 1807 s WEILHEIM NAPLES,FL 34104-0819 BLONAY GERMANY, 82382-D-0000 SWITZERLAND, —0000 I LEON,HUGO LEONARDI,HUGO■&TER RI LEPORE,SCOTT J=&LISA S GRETEL CACERES 1287 BRIARWOOD CT 834 COLDSTREAM CT 165 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4732 NAPLES,FL 34104-0808 LEVESQUE,DONALD W=&GERALDINE ULLY,DENNIS C=&SHARON L ULLY,DENNIS C=&SHARON L 237 FOX DEN CIR 371 17TH ST NW 371 17TH ST NW r. NAPLES,FL 34104---4984 NAPLES,FL 34120-1921 NAPLES,FL 34120-1921 1 LINDER LIVING TRUST LINDQUIST,PHIUP V LINDSEY,CHERYL 885 BRIARWOOD BLVD OLSEN,DOUGLAS B PO BOX 283 NAPLES.FL 34104-4785 5141 BRIXTON CT BUZZARDS BAY.MA 02532-0000 I NAPLES,FL 34104-4782 1 I 1 UPSETZ,ALVIN H LOGSDON,VICTOR E_&SUSAN M LONGE,THOMAS J 1 KAREN F HABER 889 CROSSFIELD CIR 3725 RACHEL LN 1034 TIVOLI DR NAPLES,FL 34104---4792 NAPLES,FL 34103--3728 NAPLES,FL 34104•-0808 a I. 1 1 3 3 k 1 1 I I 3 LOPEZ,JORGE M=&CARMEN M LORD JOHN D C SANSOM LOSCHIAVO,JOSEPH J 2831 84TH ST SW LADY CAROLYN SANSOM 1015 TIVOLI DR NAPLES,FL 34105-.7333 9 AFRODITIS NAPLES,FL 34104-0883 ARMOV CYPRUS, 8255---0000 I LOUIS A SCHMALFELDT REV TRUST LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC LUIZZI,CAROL A H SCHMALFELDT REV TRUST EST HIGHWAY 288 EAST(EAST DOCK) KIM M LUIZZI i 122 FOXTAIL CT N WILKESBORO,NG 28859.0000 367 DOVER PL APT 1006 . 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-4996 NAPLES,FL 34104-4716 LUPOSELLO,ALFRED J LYKOS PROPERTIES,LLC LYONS,LAURENCEA=&MARIA N MARK LUPOSELLO 4779 ENTERPRISE AVE PO BOX 691 1287 GRAND ISLE CT NAPLES,FL 34104-7042 ATTLEBORO,MA 02703--0010 NAPLES,FL 34108-0000 I 1 M A&MET HINTZ UV TRUST MACGREGOR,DIANNE MACKENZIE,ROBERT C=&GAIL A 26 OLD PHALANX ROAD 1467 VINTAGE COURT 425 DUNDEE CT LINCROFT,NJ 07736-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104T0-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104--4778 MACLEOD ET AL,MEGAN E MAJCAN,JOSEPH=&THERESA MALIZIA,MARYANN=&MICHAEL E 1055 TIVOLI DR 6615 S PARKSIDE AVE 877 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0863 CHICAGO,IL 60638-4712 NAPLES,FL 34104-4735 i . MALLARD,JOSEPH MALLARD,JOSEPH MALLARD.JOSEPH L t 4140 FAMILY CIRCLE CT 4140 FAMILY CIRCLE CT 4140 FAMILY CIRCLE CT NAPLES,FL 34104-7080 NAPLES,FL 34104-7080 NAPLES,FL 34104-7060 t MALONE TR,ROBERT F MALONE,DENNIS HYATT MANCUSO,EDWIN W JANICE L ROBERT F MALONE TRUST MARY SUSAN MALONE 3721 RACHEL LN UTD 9/17/98 1107 TIVOU DR NAPLES,FL 34103--3728 8020 BRIXTON CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4781 i I MANNING,BETH A MANNING,THOMAS J MAPLEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 1051 BRIAR WOOD BLVD O'REILLY,NOELLE B %FRITZ PROPERTY MGMT NAPLES,FL 34104-0886 MAYON,JOHN G.&MOIRA 920 HIDDEN HARBOUR DR 30 SHELBOURNE RODUBLIN 4 NAPLES,FL 34109-8807 IRELAND, -0000 I MAPLEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC MAPLEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC MAPLEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC %FRITZ PROPERTY MGMT %FRITZ PROPERTY MGMT %FRITZ PROPERTY MGMT 1 920 HIDDEN HARBOUR DR 920 HIDDEN HARBOUR DR 920 HIDDEN HARBOUR DR NAPLES,FL 34109-8607 NAPLES,FL 34109--8807 NAPLES,FL 34109-8807 1 f MAPLEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC MARBEL LAKEVIEW LLC MARIE A MALEBRANCHE REV TRUST 1 %FRITZ PROPERTY MGMT MERKURSTRASSE 25 367 DOVER PL APT 1003 920 HIDDEN HARBOUR DR WINTERHUR NAPLES,FL 34104-4718 NAPLES,FL 34109--8807 SWITZERLAND, -0000 1 1 f I 1 I I 1 i gg MARILYN COLLINS REV UV TRUST MARINELU,RICHARD D=&HELGA M MARKHAM FAMILY TRUST € 4005 FAMILY CIRCLE CT 273 FOX DEN CIR PO BOX 2018 # NAPLES,FL 34104-7080 NAPLES,FL 34104-4984 YORK BEACH,ME 03910-2016 I I I MARKHAM,SHEILA HANNIGAN HARLOW,DAVID=$ELIZABETH MARRIOTT,ANDREW R g 448 DUNDEE CT 111 MAIN RD FURNACE EDGE NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 HOCKLEY LITTLE LONDON RD • ESSEX HORAM HEATHFIELDE SUSSEX UNITED KINGDOM, SS54RN-0000 UNITED KINGDOM, TN21 OBJ-0000 x MARSH,DEREK G MARTIN,GEORGE D=&DEBRA MARTIN,ROBERT M=&MARY A i 5150 COLDSTREAM LN PO BOX 48818 718 TETON CT NAPLES,FL 34104-4736 ST PETERSBURG,FL 33743---8818 NAPLES,FL 34104-4708 13 I MASSA,CARL-&ELLEN MASTOVSKY,JAN MATTALIANO TR,MARGARET 997 TIVOLI CT KATERINA MASTOVSKA MARGARET MATTALIANO REV TRUST NAPLES,FL 34104--0836 3138 SPRING MILL RD UTD 3/5/10 PLYMOUTH MEETING,PA 19482.-1925 941 MARBLE DR NAPLES,FL 34104--0818 S MATTOTZI,JASON JOSEPH MATTSON,ROBERT W MAYMON,ANTONY Ss&BETTINA F 1515 VINTAGE LN GIBBS,MARSHA A 29 LIFFORD GARDENS NAPLES,FL 34104-0820 371 AIRPORT PULLING RD N BROADWAY NAPLES,FL 34104---3520 WORCESTERSHIRE ENGLAND, WR127DA---0000 MAZER.EDWARD&LISA MSC PARTNERSHIP MC ALPINE BRIARWOOD INC 120 WHITE ROCK RD*4118 %JAMES S LINDSAY 1100 5TH AVE S STE 201 VERONA,NJ 07044-0000 723 21ST AVE 8 NAPLES.FL 34102--8407 NAPLES,FL 34102-7611 `3 MC CARTHY TR,JOHN J MC CONN ELL,SHAWN C=&ANGIE D MC CUTCHEON,DONALD G-&CAROL NAPLES REALTY TRUST 811 COLDSTREAM CT 230 STANHOPE CIR UTD 4/9194 NAPLES,FL 34104-4735 NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 I 149 FOX DEN CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-4972 € MC DONAGH,TREVOR &EILEEN A MC GRUER,GORDON=&CAROL MCCRACKEN.FRED W ASHWATER HOUSE 20 BIRCHWOOD DR JANET MULUN EWEN CIRENCESTER WILMSLOW 885 BRIARWOOD BLVD GLOUCESTERSHIRE CHESHIRE NAPLES,FL 34104-4784 I ENGLAND, GL76P2--0000 ENGLAND. SK92RL--0000 1 MCCULLEN,KEITH=&BETH L MCDEVITT,JOHN E_&SANDRA S MCDONALD,PATRICIA L s 1309 BRIARWOOD CT 27 ALMOND DALE CT BEVERLY A GRAY NAPELS,FL 34104--0000 SPRING,TX 77382--0000 515 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-4728 1 I . 1 MCFARLANE DONNA R MCGEE,ANTHONY P--$JULIE L MCKENNA JR,JAMES=$THERESA I 1018 TIVOLI CT 702 CROSSFIELD C1R 1161 GALLOPING HILL RD NAPLES,FL 34104---0875 NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 ELIZABETH,NJ 07208--1008 1 3 i S 1 3 1 4 i MCLE LLC MCLE LLC MCLE LLC 1309 BRIARWOOD CT 1309 BRLARWOOD CT 1309 BRIARWOOD CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104•-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 I. MCMASTER,WILLIAM E MCNULTY,SCOTT R=&PAOLA A MELLWIG,JAMES J=&JOSEPHINE D JANIS L KIERNAN 254 STANHOPE CIR 1083 TIVOLI DR 925 MARBLE DR NAPLES,FL 34104-.0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0883 NAPLES,FL 34104-0818 I. T. • MERC PROPERTIES LW MERTEL,WOLF MESICK,WILLIAM G=&JEAN W 780 TETON CT 130 BARROW ST APT 520 2939 COCO LAKES DR NAPLES,FL 34104-4798 NEW YORK,NY 10014---2868 NAPLES,FL 34105-4514 1 1 I i MESSINA FAMILY REALTY TRUST MICHAEL J ROSKIE REV TRUST MICHAUD,PATRICIA E 40 LONGFELLOW RD 737 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE 140 STANHOPE CIRCLE WATERTOWN,MA 02472--1525 NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 I MICIEU III,ALFRED J MICIELI JR,ALFRED J MIDWEST COAST LLC COLLEEN E NEWKIRK MICHELE M MICIEU 1958 6TH ST S 298 STANHOPE CIR 128 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34102-7512 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0807 1 MIDWINTER,GRAHAM E=&LINDA MIEDECK,HANS-PETER MILEWSKI TR,NANCY S ASHMEAD 5 GLEBE RD KLOPSTOCKWEG 11 NANCY S MILEWSKI TRUST STAINES LUEDENSCHEID 59789 GLACIER CLUB DR MIDDLESEX GERMANY, 58513-0000 WASHINGTON,MI 48094-2287 i i ENGLAND, TW18 1BX-0000 ° 1 MILLER,BRANDON J MILLER,HARRY J=&DORIS G MILLER,JENNIFER KATHERINE M MILLER 400 DUNDEE CT 868 COLDSTREAM CT 729 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-4775 NAPLES,FL 34104-4732 NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 MILLER,ROBERT=&LYNDA MILLER,SCOTT M &LINDA I MILLER,WILLIAM J=8,MARY ANNE 145 HONEYSUCKLE WAY 24W611 MEADOW LAKE DR 1990 TERRAZZO IN FORT MCMURRAY,AB ' NAPERVILLE,IL 80540-3723 NAPLES,FL 34104---0825 CANADA, T9K 1J0-0000 MILLS,JEFFREY=&NINA MIRSKI JR TR,THADDEUS A MJM TRUST 30 PAMELA RD THADDEUS A MIRSKI JR TRUST RR 6 CO 1 FRAMINGHAM,MA 01701--3974 UTD 1211104 BOURG,ON PO BOX 3818 CANADA, K9A4---0000 BARRINGTON,IL 80011-3818 MOHAMMAD,JOHN A MOHR JR,JAMES W MOLONEY,THOMAS E_&SUSAN M 107 LEAWOOD CIR 5433 VILLAGE DR 783 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-4158 WEST BEND,WI 53095---0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 Y pi ji i 1 1 i i qa 0 f MONIZ,MANUEL M=&ODETTE MONTAGNO,KENNETH F MOORE,JAMES R=&ALISON M I 63 WAMSUTTA RD FLORENCE E MONTAGNO 9,FROWD CLOSE FORDHAM I SOMERSET,MA 02726-3626 173 GRANDVIEW LANE ELY V. MAHWAH,NJ 07430-0000 CAMBRIDGESHIRE ENGLAND, CB7 5NE-0000 MORAD,JOHN M=&LYNNE W MORALES,JUAN C MOREY,WILLIAM Rs&JANET R 796 BRIARWOOD BLVD 1328 SAN MARCOS BLVD 120 FOXTAIL CT NAPLES,FL 34104--4784 NAPLES,FL 34104-3806 NAPLES,FL 34104-4998 MORGAN STANLEY ABS MORGENSTERN,ADAM T MORIN,RAYMOND A.&JUDITH F CAPITAL I INC TRUST 2006-HE6 JACQUELINE M MORGENSTERN 249 FOX DEN CIR %SELECT PORTFOLIO SRVG INC 1024 TIVOLI LN NAPLES,FL 34104--4964 3815 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE NAPLES,FL 34104-0830 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115--0000 I MORISSETTE,RENEE M MORKUNASTR,PETER MORLEY,HARRY J=&Bt TYZ MICHAEL S PUCHIR PETER MORKUNAS FAM TRUST 308 FOXTAIL CT 286 STANHOPE CIR 2385 KINGS LAKE BLVD NAPLES,FL 34104-4998 NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 NAPLES,FL 34112--5307 I 1 MORLOCK,ROGER A=&CAROL A MORRIS FAMILY TRUST MORRIS,CLIVE=&BARBARA ANNE 2758 ABBEYVILLE RD 2019 TERRAZZO LN 80 ROMILLY PARK RD VALLEY CITY,OH 44280-9469 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 BARRY VALE OF GLAMORGAN SOUTH WALES ENGLAND, CF628RR--0000 MORRISON,IAN G=&LUCY C MORTER,KEVIN W=&PAMELA J MUDERACK PATRICIA M BRICK HOUSE 5170 BRIXTON CT %KIM BENNETT-KING BRAXTED RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4781 CNE VACATION RENTAL KELVEDON 642 BRIARWOOD BLVD I ENGLAND, CO5 95S-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4784 t MUECK,JURGEN=&MARIA MULLIGAN,STEPHEN J=&MARTHA M MUNFORD,ROY Ma&JACQUELINE M IM SONNENECK 9 1201 RED SILVER CT 12 ST PAULS MEWS 11 BERGKAMEN DOWNERS GROVE,IL 60515---1428 SURREY GERMANY, 59192-0000 DORKING ENGLAND, R74 2HP-0000 MURPHY,MICHELE A MURRAY,JOHN F TRUST MUSCHOTT,SALLY R MURPHY,CATHY M %HARDING&CARBONE 700 COLDSTREAM CT 922 MARBLE DR TRUST#995986710 NAPLES,FL 34104--4732 • NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD HOUSTON,TX 77025-1119 3 N A M RENTAL LLC NAGY,JOSEPH NANAYAKKARA,KARL=&JANKIE D 4530 ARNOLD AVE STE 5 115 LEAWOOD CIR 138 BROOK ST NAPLES,FL 34104-3344 NAPLES,FL 34104---4158 GARDEN CITY,NY 11530-0000 I 1 1 NAPIER,DAVID=&JUDITH NAPLES BUSINESS&STORAGE PARK NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC 158 LEMON RD CONDOMINIUM ASSN INC 350 HIGHLAND DR FARMINGDALE,NJ 07727---3538 C/O PECK&PECK P A LEWISVILLE,TX 75067--0000 € 5801 PEUCAN BAY BLVD#103 NAPLES,FL 34108-0000 i 1 I i NEORON,JOSE A NEIL CRAFFEY REV LIV TRUST NELSON.ARNE H=&MARILYN L 803 CROSSFIELD CIR 1708 LOMA ST 137 FOX DEN CIR NAPLES,FL 34104--4762 SANTA BARBARA,CA 93103-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4972 i NESTLE,REINER=&GUDRUN NEWCOMB,SCOTT D=&CHERYL A NGUYEN,GINA /. WALSTRASSE 2 4620 37TH ST SE 7941 LEICESTER DR OELBRONN-DUERRN MINOT,ND 58701-0000 NAPLES.FL 34104--0000 GERMANY, 75248-0000 NGUYEN,HAO NICHOLSON,GARY NICOLE A HRYCAJ REV TRUST 498 CROSSFIELD CIR 707 BRIARW000 BLVD KANTERSHOF 135 NAPLES,FL 34104-4717 NAPLES,FL 34104-4785 AMSTERDAM NETHERLANDS, --0000 e1 NICOLL.STUART-8.NADAGE NIVISON,RICHARD D=&JOHANNA L NOBLE,DAVID 70 BROWNING RD 173 STANHOPE CIR 390 DOVER PL APT 303 SHORT HILLS,NJ 07078-1142 NAPLES,FL 34104-0808 NAPLES,FL 34104--4793 1 NORDBERG,DANIEL ARTHUR NORTH AMERICAN FORECLOSURE NOVY,GERALDINE BARBARA LEE NORDBERG &DISTRESSED OPPORTUNITIES 12715 TROWBRIDGE LN 296 STANHOPE GIN FUND LLLP TAMPA,FL 33824---4186 NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 PO BOX 99 BUFFALO,NY 14205J0-0000 i NOWAKOWSKI,JAMES A=&SANDRA NOWICKI TR,DONALD M=&VIVIAN NOWMAN TR,RONALD 0 317 STERLING CIR VIVIAN M NOWICKI TRUST ITF RONALD 0 NOWMAN LlTRUST CARY,IL 60013-1608 UTD 1-5-91 UM 2/4/2000 i 31232 GAY ST 300 N KENNEDY DR I ROSEVILLE,MI 48088•-1225 BRADLEY,IL 80915---1559 i NUCLCEV LLC NUGNES,FRANK A=&BETTY O'BRIEN JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST CIO RICHARD N OLMSTEAD 328 ROOSEVELT AVE 2022 TERRAZZO LN 146 MOORINGS PARK DR#N210 HASBROUCK HEIGHT,NJ 07604-1614 NAPLES,FL 34104-0828 NAPLES,FL 34105-0000 1 OLSEN,KENNETH A=&PATRICIA J OLSZEWSKI,JOSEPH A-&VIVIAN M ONEIL,ANGELA R 1 1987 TERRAZZO LN 103 LEAWOOD CIR 116 FOXTAIL CT 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-0829 NAPLES,FL 34104-4158 NAPLES,FL 34104—4896 i I 1 ORCHID RUN APARTMENTS LLC O'REILLY,PAUL D &ELIZABETH O'REILLY.PAUL D=&ELIZABETH 1 730 BONNIE BRAE ST 68 HILLCREST RD 58 HILLCREST RD WINTER PARK,FL 32789-0000 BELMONT,MA 02478---2954 BELMONT,MA 02478-2954 ORMEROD TR,ALLAN Cm&BARBARA ORRUEL,ULYAN=&JUAN JOSE OTTO,ALEXANDER A C&B ORMEROD ST UV TRUST 235 STANHOPE CIR SCHWARZ,PETER 1948 TERRAZZO LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 CIO ALLURE ACCOUNTING LLC NAPLES,FL 34104-0825 3865 BONITA BEACH RD STE 1 BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134-4198 f i I 8 t , i 1 OK OWEN,SIDNEY C=&MARGARET A OWENS,ROBERT O 19442 2 KING FISH P FISH RD 4747 RIVERSIDE DR EAST SUIT502 1027 11VOU LN FL 34104-0887 NAPLES,FL 34102---1534 WINDSOR,ON CANADA, N8Y-1B9--0000 1 I P PACHECO,ABILIO PADULA,PHILIP-&LAURA 322 J&J A 9AIL TTA TRUST 261 STANHOPE CIR 1420 BALSAM WAY -. / NAPLES,LES,FL 34104-4998 MILFORD,MI 48381--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104---4898 NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 g I k • I. s PAGANES,RICHARD& &CHRISTINE PANIPINTO,FRANK- CHRISTINE L e PAETSCH,MARKUS SSFIELD OR 4313 ROBIN AVE C/O MARINO&SCOLA CONSULTING 868 CRO NAPLES,IN FL 34104 4841 10821 AIRPORT PULLING RD N#6 NAPLES,FL 34904-4791 771 S BARFIELD DR MARCO ISLAND,FL 34145---5948 I I- 4 VINT PARENTEAU,PAUL J PARENTEAU,ROGER t PARENTEAU, LN,PAUL J 1563 VINTAGE LN LINDA L PARENTEAU f NAPLES,FL 34104-0805 NAPLES,FL 34104-0805 PAUL J PARENTEAU 1977 TERRAZZO LN E NAPLES,FL 34104-0829 1 PARILLO,GERARD F=&DIANE P PARIZOT,JEAN MARC 544 PARENT,PETER CIR PATRICIAA 942TIVOLI Cl' DIM ITRA FRANGOS NA LES FL 34D CIR 2015 RUE DE PITEGNY NAPLES,FL 34104—4725 NAPLES,FL 34104-0834 GEX I. FRANCE, 01170--0000 PASS,MARTYN PASSARELLI JR,JOHN 312 FOXTAIL BARBARA A TERESA PASS MARY JANE PASSARELLI NAPLES,LES,FL 34 APARTMENTS 118 FOXTAIL CT NAPLES,FL 34104 4998 FORHILL MANOR OFF LEA END LNWEATHEROAK NAPLES,FL 34104---49 UNITED KINGDOM, B38 9EA-0000 PATRICK,SUSAN LOUIS PAUL,PETER R=&CATHERINE M 898 CROSSFIELD ELD CIR JOSE 0 681 CROSSFIELD CIR 224 FOXTAIL CT NAPLES,LE03 FL 34104-0000 CIR NAPLES,FL 34104---4909 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4792 s PEARCE,CHARLES R PEOPLES,DON PEABODY,EROS JOHN K JUDITH E PEARCE MARCIA SAVELLA , NAPLES,LES,FL 341 OR 77 7TH AVE APT PHF NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 NAPLES,LE0 FL 341 CIR NEW YORK,NY 10011--8845 NAPLES,FL 34104—4726 i I PEREIRA,MANUEL C=&MARIA R PEREIRO,EDUARD0 &LUISA M 4 858 COL,STREAM CT CAROL ANN 906 MARBLE DR 1027 TIVOLI DR 858 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0683 1 NAPLES,FL 94104-X733 NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 1 I 1 PETERSON,JERI I PETERSON,JOHN V=&PATRICIA J PHILLIPS III,BYNUM HARGIS 1 138 STANHOPE CIR 13024 POND APPLE DR W 793 TETON COURT I NAPLES,FL 34104-0807 NAPLES,FL 34119--8552 NAPLES,FL 34104.0000 9 s i a I PIERCE,ELIZABETH ANN PIERRE DURAND LIVING TRUST PHILLIPS,DON F=8 MARY J 343 DOVER PL APT 204 DEBRA MAREJKA LIVING TRUST NAP LEE SOU DR NAPS.FL 34104-0884 NAPLES.FL 34104•^0838 38 BD JEAN LEMAN CANDIAC,QC CANADA, .15R 484-0000 I PLANT,PETER PLETNICK,PAUL=&MARIE PINT TR,GERALD Dm&MARGARET J 1483 VINTAGE LN GERALD D PINT REVOCABLE TRUST %BPP IRELAND i UTO 03/30/90 6 LAD LN NAPLES,FL 34104^-0B20 4851 GULF SHORE BLVD N#1807 DUBUN NAPLES,FL 34103--2204 IRELAND, ---0000 I POMME VERTE LLC POOR,CHARLES E 302 STE,HOPE CI CAROL 7065 BOTTLEBRUSH LN CYNTHIA W COE NAPLES,LES,FL 3 104 5061 COLDSTREAM LN NAPLES,FL 34104-3507 NAPLES,FL 34109-3821 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 POTRATZ,ROGER POTTER,PATRICIA JEANINE PORTAL O A 1541 VINTAGE LN 9745 SW 744TH'TH S ST 2248 SIFIELD GREENS WAY NAPLES,FL 34101--0805 MIAMI,FL 33173-3173 SUN CITY CENTER,FL 33573-7172 P07TS,IRWIN D &APRIL POWERS,CHRISTINA POWERS,FRANKLIN 0 404 N STOCKTON AVE 4751 YACHT HARBOR DR 286 WEST RD WENONAH,NJ 08090-1860 NAPLES,FL 34112-4222 BAYPORT,NY 11705---1722 I PRILLER,TRICIA A PRODUCTION BLVD LLC MARILYN J PR MS GEORGE J 282 STANHOPE CIR 950 COMMERCIAL BLVD GJ&MJ J AMSTALALR R V NAPLES,FL 34104--0810 NAPLES,FL 34104-7096 GJ&MJ PRAMSTALLER REV TRUST UM 121301911045 S ISLINGTON RD CEDARVILLE,MI 49719-9744 i PUST1L,MARK PYLE,VINCENT M=&DEBORAH JANE PRODUCTION NAPLES LLC SHARON REITLNGER CHALFONT 2325 GORDON DR 7 COURTLANDS NAPLES,FL 34102-0000 410 CRAINSEBILL DR 7 COU TLANDS EST SUSSEX WEST CHICAGO,IL 60185-0000 ENGLAND, RH13 9AD-0000 1 1 QUINN,ROBERT P=&CAROL J R B&S KRANCKI REV TRUST TAEMYETTI,JAMES JOSEPH 1574 VINTAGE LN 13570 W SUN VALLEY DR TAMMY EOCKBRIDGI NAPLES,FL 34104-0804 NEW BERLIN,WI 63151-0000 835 PENNOCK BRIDGE RD LANDENBERG,PA 1 935 0-1 56 6 1 R WESLEY YOUNG&J ALOMA YOUNG RACHUMALLA,SIVA KUMAR REDDY 1098 R L JOHNSON REVOCABLE TRUST JOINT REV TRUST MYTHILI NALLAPAREDDY NAPLES,FL 3410 BLVD 189 STANHOPE CLR 354 DOVER PL APT 101 NAPLES,FL 34104-0832 NAPLES,FL 34104-0808 NAPLES.FL 34104-0867 I VENTURE � RADIO ROAD JOINT 1 JOINT RADIO RD EXEC WHOL CONDO ASSOC RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE 1100 5TH AVE S 201 %SOUTHWEST PROPERTY MGMT 1100 5TH AVE S STE 201 NAPLES,FL 34102-8407 NAPLES,FL 34102-8407 1044 CASTELLO DR STE 206 I NAPLES,FL 34103--1900 - 1 1 1 It RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE 1100 5TH AVE S STE 201 1100 6TH AVE S STE 201 1130 5TH AVE S STE 201 NAPLES,FL 34102-6407 NAPLES,FL 34102-8407 NAPLES,FL 34102--8407 4. RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE 1100 5TH AVE S STE 201 1100 5TH AVE S STE 201 1100 5TH AVE S STE 201 I NAPLES,FL 34102-6407 NAPLES,FL 34102-6407 NAPLES,FL 34102--8407 I RAFDAHL,RICHARD Wk&HELEN K RALTON,KENNETH RANERE,STEPHEN P=&KATHRINE C 2319 LOOP RD 1525 GALLEON DR 34 GREAT KAME S ALGONQUIN,IL 80102--8648 NAPLES,FL 34102--7718 PLYMOUTH,MA 02380-8374 s 1 1 RAUSCH,JOHANN RAYMOND DEANGELIS CARS LLC RB BETEILIGUNGEN LLC 842 BRIARVMOOD BLVD 4229 CUTLASS LN 629 97TH AVE N NAPLES,FL 34104-4784 NAPLES,FL 34102-7960 NAPLES,FL 34108-2284 1 i READ,THOMAS A=&MELISSA G RECHTER,RICHARD P REECFE INVESTMENTS LLC 1427 VINTAGE LN 2938 BELLFLOWER LN 2455 TARPON RD NAPLES,FL 34104-0822 NAPLES,FL 34105--3005 NAPLES,FL 34102-1580 REFERENCE WALTER F= ERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY MARY T JULIE C REEVES DOVER PARC A CONDOMINIUM FOXFIRE CONDO I HOLLY A REEVES -0000 , -0000 , 23 JOYCE RD ARLINGTON,MA 02474-2943 REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY RADIO ROAD EXECUTIVE NAPLES BUSINESS&STORAGE PARK RADIO ROAD COMMERCIAL PARK WAREHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS A CONDOMINIUM A CONDOMINIUM --0000 , -0000 --,pppp REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REKAR,RICHARD J=&SUZANNE DOVER PLACE FIELDHOUSE CENTER 942 MARBLE OR A CONDOMINIUM A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 -_0000 , --0000 i RENISON,CATHERINE=&PHILIP J RENISON,PHILIP J I. REKAR,456 VI VINTAGE RICHARD L-B,SANDRA L 832 MOUNT HOOD CT CATHERINE M RENISON NAPLES,VINTAGE LN 1059 TIVOLI DR NAPLES,FL 34104-0819 NAPLES,FL 34104-4794 NAPLES,FL 34104-08$3 $ 5. 1. REYNOLDS,DENNIS EDWARD RICE,WARREN=&DONNA 12 ROOSEVELT ELT AVE A 1031 TIVOLI DR 12 ROOSEVELT AV BUERGERMEISTER-JUNKERT STRABE 9 56270 KLEIN NAPLES,FL 34104-0883 TOTOWA,NJ 07512-0000 \MNTERHEIM GERMANY, 955270--0000 . i 1 I i i I b i 9 Y RIGNEY TR,JOSEPH P RIHS,DOMINIQUE C 5140 14 BROU O LCTALYN PARRISH JOSEPH P R1GNEY TRUST 5131 SUNBURY CT NAPLES,FL 34104-4781 IXTON UTD 7121106 NAPLES,FL 34104--4731 NAP 223 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104--0811 t RM COLE INC ROADMAN,SHARON 1 RITCHIE TR,HR J 428 HENLEY DR 1507 VINTAGE LN .. i ALAN-RITCHIE 03 REV TRUST NAPLES,FL 34104-8627 NAPLES,FL 34104-0820 UTD 7-18-03 4801 BONITA BAY BLVD 1 BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134--6554 ROBERT A CORNOG 1998 TRUST ROBERT SINCLAIR LIVING TRUST ROBERTS,LOLA DON HUGER 81 SEAGATE DR APT 601 KAREN HAWRYLUK LIVING TRUST DON HUB RY HUGER NAPLES,FL 34193-2483 S EAS1VILLE SCARBOROUGH,H, 620 BRIARWOOD BLVD SCARBOROUGH,ON CANADA, M1M 2N8---0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 S ROBILLARD,DENIS ROBSON,JEREMY IAN ROBERTS RNLYNN WALTER C SYLVIE BOISVERT MART ELUNED JAYNE USA LIA KIMBERLY 305 DANIEL CRESCENT ROBERTS 8784 TERRASSE LAWRENCE ELORA,ON 12 BROOME STSANDYS LASALLE,QC CANADA, H8P ZT4--0000 CANADA, NOB 150--0000 BERMUDA, MA03-0000 i RODE RICK HEIDI K RODRIGUEZ,CANDIDO=&ISABEL RODRIGUEZ-BORIA,WANDA ''.1075 TIVOLI DR 812 CROSSFIELD CIR 348 DOVER PL APT 204 NAPLES,FL 34104--0883 NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104---0839 1 i ROGERS,PAUL ROMANO,ELIZABETH M ROONEY III,ARTHUR J DOROTHY ROGERS 205 GOLDENROD DR CHRISTINE B ROONEY 284g'I'RILLIUM WAY } PAUL ROGERS JR UPPER GWYNEDD,PA 19448-7805 NAPLES,FL 34106--0000 27 N DOUGLAS ST ROCKLAND,MA 02370-2150 i ROSEVELT,DOROTHY ROSS,FRANCIS PAUL ROUSE,PAULA E 194 706 CROSSFIELD CIR PO BOX 52154 NAPLES,LES,FL 34 CT SHREVEPORT,LA 71135--2164 NAPLES,FL 34104--4898 NAPLES,FL 34104-�000D RUBLE,RICHARD Pm&PATRICIA A RUDD,JONATHAN L=&MARIA R E RUIDIAZ,REYNALDO=&KIMBERLY S 380 DOVER PL APT 1301 2035 TERRAZZO LN 1035 TIVOLI DR NAPLES,FL 34104—.4707 NAPLES,FL 34104-0828 NAPLES,FL 34104-0863 I i I RU NA MOENNING REVOCABLE TRUST RUSSELL EST,DONALD A 748 TETON VN %CHARLOTTE MAHER PR HELEN SUYDAM 748 N CT IRA ESCHERMANN REV TRUST CROSSFIELD C1R NAPLES,FL 34104-4798 NELKENWEG 18 HELLIGENHAUS NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 GERMANY, 42579-0000 1; i RYAN,USA 0 � RUSSO,ROBERT A=&ROSANNA RUSSO,SANTO=&MADELINE RYAN,,USA EAGLES BEND CT 390 DOVER PL APT 304 3 1 JORDAN CT NC 28164 0000 DD(HILLS,NY 11748-8319 NAPLES,Fl 34104-4793 STANLEY, "a I 1 1 Y i 1 i i i RYAN,PAUL G=&DEBRA A SALVO,CARMINE J SAMI 11 TRUST 2005-AR8 7 104 COMMONWEALTH RD BERNADETTE CLARKE 350 HIGHLAND DRIVE LYNN,MA 01904-0000 226 FOX DEN CIR LEWISVILLE,TX 75087---0000 NAPLES,FL 34104--4984 1 SAMS,THOMAS E=&PATRICIA A SANDAL REAL ESTATE HLDNG LLC SAMS,THOMAS E=8,PATRICIA A 1043 TIVOLI DR 1043 TIVOU DR 4720 RADIO RD NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104--0853 NAPLES,FL 34104-4128 SANDERS,MARY LINDA SANTOMIERI,DAVID M SARDAR,ZAHEER M=&KARYN L 354 DOVER PL APT 103 JEANNETTE M SANTOMIERI 373 RAMSEY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-0887 834 COLDSTREAM CT DEERFIELD,IL 60015-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 s i F SARGERT,LAUREL J SARGERT,LAUREL K SARI,GREGORY 1 SUSAN N JOSEPH 319 STANHOPE CIR 579 CROSSFIELD CIR i 161 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104-081 3 NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 NAPLES,FL 34104-0808 i i s SASTRE,RUBEN O=&ELENA SAUM,THOMAS M'&SUSAN K SCANLON JR.DONALD J=&SHARON 3 3801 ARCTIC CIR 5060 COLDSTREAM LN 781 CROSSFIELD CIR NAPLES,FL 34112-5007 NAPLES,FL 34104--4738 NAPLES,FL 34104.4758 1 1 SCHAFER,WILLIAM O=&JOCELYN A SCHICKLING,ROBERT=&ELIZABETH SCHMITT,NICK=&MICHELLE 1 1985 TERRAZZO LANE 1974 TERRAZZO LN 1465 VINTAGE LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0829 NAPLES,FL 34104--0625 NAPLES,FL 34104--0622 SCHUSTER,ROBERT S SCOLERI,RONALD V SCOTT,PAUL R=&DIANE E GRETCHEN M SCHUSTER HARRIET GAUDIOSI—SCOLERI 5100 MAHOGANY RIDGE DR 330 DOVER PL APT 202 823 TIVOU CT NAPLES,FL 34119-2530 NAPLES,FL 34104-0870 NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 1 SEC'Y OF HOUSING&URBAN DEV SEEBACHER TR,JURGEN SEELEY,CAROLYN J 4 V CHIEF PROPERY DISP OFFICER JURGEN SEEBACHER REV TRUST 325 DOVER PL APT 202 MICHAELSON CONNOR&BOUL INC 3018 CINNAMON BAY CIRCLE • • NAPLES,FL 34104-0872 4400 WILL ROGERS PKWY STE 300 NAPLES,FL 34119-0000 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK 73108--0000 1 1 SELBINA LIMITED SERGENT,WILLIAM SHADLEY,THOMAS M=&CHRISTINE I PALTO ALTO 325 DOVER PL 81-102 126 STANHOPE CIR i BALLYBRIDGE RATHMICHAEL NAPLES,FL 34104--0872 NAPLES,FL 34104—.0806 DUBLIN IRELAND, —0000 f SHARON K GALLER TRUST SHARP JR,JAY R SHEILA RONALD TRUST TODD S GALLER TRUST 132 CORAL VINE DR 88 TAHITI RD 1042 BRIARWOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34110-5718 MARCO ISLAND,FL 34145--4033 NAPLES,FL 34104-0803 1 3 1 t 1 SHERMAN,DIANN I SHUKAN,STEVEN 8=&CANDACE T SIDBURY,LORI S e 555 CROSSFIELD CIR 5070 SUNBURY CT 840 BRIARWOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 NAPLES,FL 34104--4730 NAPLES,FL 34104-0800 1 I t SILVEIRA,JOHN SILVER,JAMES H SIMMONS,ROBERT 398 DOVER PL APT 102 MICHAEL J COTE CHERYL TERRY NAPLES,FL 34104--0702 1922 TERRAZZO LANE 226 WOLOMOLOPOAG ST 1 NAPLES,FL 34104---0000 SHARON,MA 02087-2933 1 SKINGLEY,JEREMY R=&KAREN R SKINGLEY,JEREMY=&KAREN SKRIVAN,DEIDRE H x 328 HAGLEY RD 328 HAGLEY RD 534 HICKORY RD 1 PEDMORE STOURBRIDGE PEDMORE STOURBRIOGE NAPLES,FL 34106--2637 I WEST MIDLANDS WEST MIDLANDS +; ENGLAND, DY9ORD--0000 ENGLAND, DY9 ORD--0000 t I SMITH OPERATING&MGMNT CO SMITH TR,SHIRLEY S SMITH,DEBRA BROCK PO BOX 52 GREGORY M SMITH REV TRUST 5200 BRIXTON CT SHREVEPORT,LA 71181--0052 331 DOVER PL APT 103 NAPLES,FL 34104-4781 I NAPLES,FL 34104-0B71 i l SMITH,LEON 8=&DONNA N SNYDER.BRYAN K=&RENEE D SOFFIN,GERALD=&KAREN 1301 1ST ST S#503 4 WOODLAND HOLLOW DR 273 STANHOPE CIR JACKSONVILLE,FL 32250-0000 BRADFORD,PA 18701--2546 NAPLES,FL 34104--0811 SOLEM,MATTHEW M=&AMANDA S SOLTIS,DENNIS J=&KAREN J SONDERS,PETER F I 678 COLDSTREAM COURT 726 CROSSFIELD CIR 905 MARBLE DR 1 NAPLES,FL 3410452--000o NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 NAPLES,Fl. 34104--0818 1 SOTO,GISELLE SOTO,MANUEL=&NANCY SOUTHWEST PROPERTY MGMT CORP 366 DOVER PLACE#1103 379 DOVER PL APT 604 1044 CASTELLO DR STE 208 e NAPLES,FL 34104.10-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0824 NAPLES,FL 34103-1900 SOUTHWEST PROPERTY MGMT CORP SOUTHWEST PROPERTY MGMT CORP SODU H1MNND AGERMHC L C 1044 CASTELLO DR STE 208 1044 CASTELLO DR STE 206 NAPLES,FL 34103-1900 NAPLES,FL 34103-1900 FARMINGTON HILLS,MI 48334-5900 3 SPANJERS ET AL,HENRY SPENGLER PLUMBING INC SPINELLI JR,THOMAS 312872 DEREHAM LINE RR#7 535 CARPENTER CT 2027 TERRAZZO LN TILLSONBURG,ON NAPLES,FL 34110-2122 NAPLES,FL 34104---0828 3 CANADA, N4G4HI-0000 1 i SPINELLI,WILLIAM SPIRIT MASTER FUNDING LLC STALLEY,KEVIN JOHN i 2948 BELLFLOWER LN %SARAH A KUBIAK 156 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34105--0000 18767 N PERIMETER DR#210 NAPLES,FL 34104-0807 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85280---1042 3 1 f 3 Y3 S 1 STANALAND,BRETT E STANKE.PENNY D STEIN,FREDERICK=&ANDREA D 1268 BRIARWOOD COURT 1498 VINTAGE IN 690 ABERDEEN LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0833 NAPLES,FL 34104--0819 BUFFALO GROVE,IL 60089-1504 STETLER,JOAN T STETSON,JEANNINE STEVEN T CLONTZ REV TRUST 7342 STONEGATE OR 6899 LONE OAK BLVD 1441 GULF SHORE BLVD S NAPLES,FL 34109-7201 NAPLES,FL 34109---8815 NAPLES,FL 34102-0000 1 1 . k 1 • STEVENS,JAN M=&JEAN A STOKES,JULIAN L H.&DEBORAH L STONE,CAROL S 604 CROSSFIELD CIR 4795 ENTERPRISE AVE 511 CROSSFIELD CIR a NAPLES,FL 34104-4741 NAPLES,FL 34104—•7042 NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 STONEBURNER,JUDITH A STRAKA,CHERYL L STRAKES,VAN P'&NANCY R 6400 BOTTLEBRUSH LN 136 FOX DEN CIR 13910 JARRETTSVILLE PIKE NAPLES,FL 34109-3810 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 PHOENIX,MD 21131--1412 STRENFEL,LEO M STUBBS.AUSON MARY STURGES,DOUGLAS M.&SUSAN M 663 BRIARWOOD BLVD 37 FRANKLIN COURT 1148 BERKSHIRE DR NAPLES,FL 34104-4785 WORMLEY,GODALMING, MACEDONIA,OH 44056-0000 SURREY ENGLAND, GU85US--0000 I. SU,CHEN LUNG SUKEFORTH.JOHN E SULLIVAN,JOHN M=&JOYCE H LEE SUE 8U ELIZABETH M OPALKA 349 HIGHLAND BCH 5288 CYPRESS LN 354 DOVER PL APT 102 AUBURN,NY 13021-8302 NAPLES,FL 34113--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104--0887 i SUNDIC,RADOMIR SURENDRA,ANITHA SHEN I OY SUSAN M LUSCINSKI TRUST 325 DOVER PL#I-204 NARASIMHA V KAMATH 1864 WASHINGTON ST NAPLES,FL 34104-0872 779 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE WALPOLE,MA 02081•--2416 NAPLES,FL 34104-4758 SUYDAM,MARJORIE SWANSON,GEORGE C SWANSON,MARK D=&MARY ANN B 349 DOVER PL APT 101 157 STANHOPE CIR 833 MOUNT HOOD CT NAPLES,FL 34104-0859 NAPLES,FL 34104-0808 NAPLES,FL 34104-4794 SWEETBUSH,JANE SWIFT FAMILY TRUST SZITTAI,MARK=&LAURIE 643 CROSSFIELD CIR 175 KINGS WAY 719 TETON COURT NAPLES,FL 34104-4726 NAPLES,FL 34104-4967 NAPLES,FL 34104AJ-0000 T C GALE CONSULTING INC T M DELAWARE INC TAHIRA,MITZI M 4620 SHORES DR 1100 6TH AVE S STE 201 5738 LAGO VILLAGGIO WAY BAY HARBOR,MI 49770-8875 NAPLES,FL 34102--8407 NAPLES,FL 34104-5742 1 I L s i 1 I i TANCHEFF,WENDY TANNER,JACK M=&ELLEN K TAYLOR,ALAN KENT JOHN TANCHEFF 057 CROSSFIELD CIR#120 WENDY LORAINE TAYLOR PO BOX 6571 NAPLES,FL 34104---4792 18 DEBRA CRES BRECKENRIDGE,CO 80424-0000 BARRIE,ON CANADA, L4N 311-0000 a TAYLOR,MARGOT TEICHMANN,RALF TEN KROODE,A N A 398 CALDERSTONE CRESCENT 994 11VOL1 COURT I J B TEN KROODE-HOGERWERF TORONTO,ON NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 DE BOTMAR 8 1 CANADA, M1C 3A2--0000 AMSTELVEEN NETHERLANDS, 1187 LX-0000 € t 1 TENERIELLO FAMILY TRUST TERENCE D FLETCHER TRUST THACHER,DONNA M 971 TIVOLI DR 2510 COWPATH 354 DOVER PL APT 202 NAPLES,FL 34104.0877 DORCHESTER,ON NAPLES,FL 34104--0867 CANADA, NOL1G6-0000 THODES FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC THOMPSON,FRANCIS T=&GLORIA C THORSON,ERNEST 0 3750 CASEY KEY ROAD 1028 TIVOLI LN 607 CROSSFIELD CIR NOKOMIS,FL 34275--0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0830 NAPLES,FL 34104-4752 TIAN,VI HUA TIBALDI,SILVIO=&ANNE MARIE TIBSTRA,LAWRENCE J 15 MAYFAIR DRIVE 11 DEWEY PL 215 BAHIA PT I LONDON,ON LINDENHURST,NY 11757--5904 NAPLES,FL 34103-3500 CANADA, NBA 2M7--0000 i TIFFANY,GUY M=&SALLY J TINDELL TR,ALVIN R TISDALE TR,ROBERT P—&MARY E 5 490 CROSSFIELD CIR 2153 SUNSHINE BLVD MARY ELLEN TISDALE TRUST-2004 NAPLES,FL 34104-4717 NAPLES,FL 34118-8309 UTD 5/17/04 17 SANDSTONE RD t WESTFORD,MA 01886--6313 ! i TIVOU 1116 LLD TOMLIN JR,DONALD REID TOMLINSON,IAN C=&UNDA A 6 VICARAGE RISE PAMELA K TOMUN 508 CROSSFIELD CIR LOIS WEEDON 1112 BRIARWOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34104-4725 I TOWEESTERNORTHAMPTONSHIRE NAPLES,FL 34104--0832 UNITED KINGDOM, NN128PQ--0 000 TOMPKINS,KEITH=&ANGELA TRAYMAN.CHARLES P=&ROBERTA TREVOR BOND ASSOCIATES LTD 999 BRIARWOOD BLVD 1918 TERRAZZO LN 1801 GORDON DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34104-0801 NAPLES,FL 34104-0826 NAPLES,FL 34102-0000 I 1 1 TRIANON INVESTMENTS LLC TRINITY REAL ESTATE TRUST TROMBLEY,MARK R=&DENISE M 746 12TH AVE S STE 100 1000 PINEBROOK RD 65 BYRON DR NAPLES,FL 34102---7378 VENICE,FL 34285--8428 AVON,CT 06001--4507 I TROTTIER,CORINNE M TULLO,NICHOLAS D=&KAREN J TURNBULL,DEBORAH 5101 SUNBURY CT 277 STANHOPECIR 499 DUNEDfN DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34104-4731 NAPLES,FL 34104-0811 LONDON,ON i. CANADA, NeH 3H2-0000 1 3 i } 1 1 i 1 TURNER JR,THOMAS E_&TERRY J TURNER,DIANNE TURNER,MARTIN=&JANE t 88 CAJ£PUT DR 325 DOVER PL#J-104 MAESCOED SETTWS NEWYDD USK NAPLES,FL 34108-2800 NAPLES,FL 34104- 0873 MONMOAUTHSHIRE S WALES ENGLAND, NP151EO-0000 TURNER,SCOTT UHIJR,JOSEPH-6 PATRICIA UNIT 201 RADIO ROAD I. 200 FOX DEN CIR 234 STANHOPE CIRCLE WAREHOUSE LAND TRUST 1• NAPLES,FL 34104-4983 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 1661 GORDON RIVER LN x NAPLES,FL 34104-5295 1 x 1 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC US TRUST MANAGMENT LLC TR V E S E FAMILY TRUST ATTN:REAL ESTATE DEPT KIKOMON HIROSIO STRORAGE LAND 1471 VINTAGE CT PO BOX 28806 TRUST NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 ATLANTA,GA 30358-0606 4740 ENTERPRISE AVE STE 204 NAPLES,FL 34104-7058 I VA1SMAN,VLADIMtR=&EMILIA VALTORTA,WALTER LUIS VAN DYK,PAUL F 36 BEAUMONT DR JORGELINA FOFIA 111 FOXWOOD LN MELVILLE,NY 11747-3402 MACHADO#3176 FORKED RIVER,NJ 08731-2908 BUENOS AIRES ARGENTINA, ---0000 VAN PATTEN,ROBERT H=&LYNDA M VAN ZANT,WILLIAM VANDAELE,DANIELa&MARCIA 1527 VINTAGE LN 2031 TERRAZZO LN 1015 TNOLI LN NAPLES,FL 34104-0820 NAPLES,FL 34104--0828 NAPLES,FL 34104-0867 VASALLO,CHERYL VARNITSKI,MIKALAI VASALLO,ROLANDO 780 TETON CT 310 STANHOPE CIR 177 STANHOPE CIRCLE NAPLES,FL 34104-4798 NAPLES,FL 34104-0812 NAPLES,FL 34104- 0000 I E VAUGHAN,MARIE CROWE VAUGHAN,TAZWELL VAUGHN,SUSAN 850 5TH AVENUE SOUTH 1247 VERSAILLES RD 133 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34102--0000 LEXINGTON,KY 40508-3117 NAPLES,FL 34104-0808 t VEGA,DANIEL J=&HOLLY C BOLTZ VEINT1MILLA,PABLO X VENGER,GAIL 109A E MAIN ST MARIELENA I VEINTIMILLA 7518 TREELINE PR AVON,MA '02322-1415 787 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES,FL' 34119-9787 NAPLES,FL 34104-4734 • 1. VER BORN,MATTHEW S=&KENDRA N VERDONK,WILLIAM 0 VESPA,FRANK 818 BRIARV OOD BLVD MEREDITH A DUNN 14 ATHOL AVE NAPLES,FL 34104--0000 747 TETON CT TORONTO,ON NAPLES,FL 34104-4798 CANADA, M8Z2A4-0000 1 i 1 VIA,JAMES A VIGILLA,JEFFERY VILLA"L"LLC 583 CROSSFIELD CIR 520 CROSSFIELD CRR SONNENSCHEIN 54 1 NAPLES,FL 34104--4728 NAPLES,FL 34104--4725 SOLINGEN 1 GERMANY, 42719-0000 1 F 1. 1 1. i VINTAGE LLC VINTON,CARL P VON ARX,DOLPH W 5070 SUNBURY CT 337 DOVER Pt APT 104 3863 RUM ROW NAPLES,FL 34104-4730 NAPLES,FL 34104--0881 NAPLES,FL 34102--7845 I WADE&BRUBAKER INC WAGGONER FL PROPERTIES LLC WAGNER,BRIAN=&ELAINE 5897 CHANTECLAIR DR APT 321 2018 ISLA VISTA LN 1670 PRESTWICK DR NAPLES,FL 34108-3124 NAPLES,FL 34105- 3071 LAKE GENEVA,WI 53147-0000 WALSH,OLA P WARMUTH,JAMES L WASEN,MICHAEL A.&TRACEY J THOMAS WALSH 5191 SUNBURY CT 325 DOVER PL APT 201 180 STANHOPE CIR NAPLES,FL 34104--4731 NAPLES,FL 34104-0872 NAPLES,FL 34104-0807 i 1 WAYNE TR,ALVIN WB COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LLC WEATHERROCK GROUP LLC ALVIN WAYNE REV LIV TRUST 2425 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PO BOX 48485 UTD 8/25/00 SUITE 211 CINCINNATI,OH 45243-0000 1528 VINTAGE LN NAPLES,FL 34103---0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0804 WEBSTER,FRANCIS=&CHARLENE WEIDLER,WOLFGANG=&HELGA WEINS,PETER T 42 CATALINA DR GERTRUD-BAUEMER-WEG 5 ELIZABETH K GROFF BRANSON,MO 86818--7198 D-75428 215 STANHOPE CIRCLE ILLENGEN NAPLES,FL 34104—•0000 GERMANY, D75428--0000 WELLER TR,ROBERT H=8 BARBARA WELLS,CAROLYN S=&BENJAMIN J WELLS,PHILLIP E_&ELLEN G 1 R&B TRUST 343 DOVER PLACE#A 102 1001 TIVOLI CT UTD 8/29/99 NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0874 1021 TIVOLI CT 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-0875 i , WELLS,SHAWN MELANIE WEST,CAROLYN D WESTREICH,ROBERT---&ANA M I I 385 DOVER PLAPT404 776 TETON CT 51 GRAHAM AVE • NAPLES,FL 34104-0810 NAPLES,FL 34104-4798 METUCHEN,NJ 08840-2355 II 1 a WHEATER,PHILLIP T.&NICOLA A WHEELER BERG LIVING TRUST WHISPERING PALMS PROPERTY LLC 11 KINGSWOOD PARK 1080 TIVOLI DRIVE 3865 BONITA BEACH RD#1-3 EPPING NAPLES,FL 341042DJ-0000 BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34136-0000 ESSEX ENGLAND, CM18 8FA-0000 1 WHITEHOUSE,JOSEPH L WHITLEY,JAMES P.&ZENAIDA M WHITTAKER,KRISTINE M i 1 MEUNDA E WHITEHOUSE 753 CROSSFIELD CIR STANKE,PENNY D 1 208 FOXTAIL CT NAPLES,FL 34104--4758 938 MARBLE DR NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 i t. WCHTERICK,M AXEL WILD CREEK NAPLES LLC WILDNER,BODO=&ANNETTE ANDREA KLARA WICHTERICH 1200 WILD CREEK TRL NE BEHRINGSTR 47 240 TIMBERLAKE CIR#203 ATLANTA,GA 30324--3830 NEUSTADT 1 NAPLES,FL 94104-0000 GERMANY, 31535-0000 I 1 1 4 t WILLIAMS,ALAN=&CARYL WILUG,GEOFFREY A=&SARAH WILMOTH,ALAN WAYNE THE GABLES 102 LEAWOOD CIR VICTORIA C MEYERS PENBERTHY RD NAPLES,FL 34104-4132 5121 COLDSTREAM LN PORTREATHCORNWALL NAPLES,FL 34104--4777 ENGLAND, TR18 4LN-0000 WILSON,ROBERT STEWART WINTER,HELMUT=&ILONA WOLF,DARLENE G MORAG FARQUHAR WILSON %GERMAN SERVICES BONNIE L NORBERG WESTFIELD VILLA 3960 RADIO RD STE 208 330 DOVER PL APT 201 WESTFIELD ROCUPAR FIFE NAPLES,FL 34104-3746 NAPLES,FL 34104--0870 SCOTLAND, KY 16 5SR--0000 i a WOLFORD TR,CHARLOTTE J WOOD,PATRICIA A WRIGHT TR,OTIS KIM CHARLOTTE J WOLDORD TRUST 202 FOXTAIL CT OTIS KIM WRIGHT REV TRUST UTD 2118/00 NAPLES,FL 34104--6188 LAURA A WRIGHT TR 955 BRIARWOOD BLVD LAURA A WRIGHT REV TRUST1021 SPRINGSIDE NAPLES,FL 34104-0801 WAY LOUISVILLE,KY 40223-3782 i i WYNN,JEANNIE M WYNN,JEANNIE M WYNN,JEANNIE M 914 MARBLE DR 914 MARBLE DR 814 MARBLE DR 1 NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 1 1 I 1 i. WYNN,JEANNIE M WYNN,JEANNIE M WYNN,JEANNIE M 914 MARBLE DR 914 MARBLE DR 914 MARBLE DR NAPLES,FL 34104--0817 NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 NAPLES,FL 34104-0817 I WYNN,JEFFREY=&CAROL YACKEL,EUGENE C ZACHOW,RICHARD W--&SABINE 309 MELWOOD DR 306 FOXTAIL CT 1523 VINTAGE LN ROCHESTER,NY 14626-0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-4998 NAPLES,FL 34104-0820 1 ZARENO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ZARRIS,ZANDRA ZELENKA,JIRI 104 EVA DRIVE MIGUEL MANGLAL IAN 825 TETON CT LONG BEACH,NY 11581-0000 242 TOWER HILL ROAD NAPLES,FL 34104-0000 RICHMOND HILL,ON CANADA, L4E 4K8--0000 1 ZEUNGES,JOACHIM ZIEGELE,HEL.MUT=&DORIS L ZIELKE,BERNHARD=&REGINA • EICHEDEER STR AS 2352 MAGNOLIA LN APT 1 40100 OEER TRAIL LN MOLLHAGEN NAPLES,FL 34112-7587 WATERFORD,VA 20197-1121 GERMANY, 22964-0000 ZITER,JASON ZULLO SR,DONALD P=&NOREEN 738 CROSSFIELD CIR 900 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES,FL 34104-4757 NAPLES,FL 34104-4733 1 I 1. 2 I 1 a 1 1 i JohnsonEric From: Fred Hood [Fred @davidsonengineering.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:56 PM To: JohnsonEric Cc: Jessica Harrelson Subject: RE: PUDA-Briarwood PUD (timing) Eric, The project will be a dual phased plan that will commence once zoning has been granted.The SDP will be held until zoning approval and we're likely looking to break ground ASAP.timing wise,we're probably looking at November/December to start. Frederick E.Hood Senior Planner Fred . davidsonenaineerina.com DE DAVIDSON www.davidsonenaineerina.com Davidson Engineering,Inc. 4365 Radio Road,Sulte#201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone 239.434.6060 Fax 239.434.6084 Disclaimer:This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recelplent(s). Any unauthorized review, use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail or attachments is prohibited. From:JohnsonEric[mailto:EricJohnson @colliereov.net) Sent: Monday,July 27,2015 3:18 PM To: Fred Hood<Fred @davidsoneneineering.com> Subject: PUDA-Briarwood PUD(timing) Fred, The administrative code as the following: 21. The proposed timing for location of, and sequence of phasing, or incremental development within the PUD. Your response is provided in the Narrative and Evaluation Criteria as follows: i e. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of avai improvements and facilities, both public and private. Response: The protect will comply with the County Adeauate Public Facilities Ordir where applicable. The site will be served by Collier County Public Utilities for t and sewer. Do you have any other"timing"information? Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2931 fax:239-252-6503 LEED GREEN Co r C�O tasty itssmArg 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 i 1 2124/201517.8. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider a resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow Conditional Use#3,Private Clubs,and Conditional Use 1 #5,Commercial and Private Parking Lots and Parking Garages,within the community commercial tract of the planned unit development pursuant to Section 6.2.0 of Ordinance No. 95-33, the Briarwood Planned Unit Development, for property consisting of 15.97 acres located at the northeast corner of Livingston Road and Radio Road in Section 31,Township 49 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida[Petition CU PL201300020481. 1 i OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) review staff's findings and I recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this Conditional Use petition;and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner has applied for a Conditional Use as provided for in the Briarwood PUD Ordinance 95-33, Section 6.2.C. Specifically the conditional uses being requested are as follows:Number 3,Private Clubs,and 5,Commercial and Private Parking Lots I and Parking Garages.. The subject property was previously developed as a golf driving range and Il n is currently vacant. The Conceptual Site Plan depicts the proposed site improvements consistent of approximately ten buildings including a central clubhouse building. The remaining buildings are composed of member owned garage suites generally described as luxury garage suites or "man caves". I As noted in the application the operational characteristics of this use is a hybrid of the requested conditional uses and will functionally be more in-line with other multi-tenant developments by providing luxury garage suites for the unit/suite owners. It is staff's understanding that the intended use of these garage suites will include owner display of unique collectable grade vehicles and include recreational lounge areas as well as storage of more common types of vehicles. The suites cannot be used for any short or long term residential use. Staff notes that this specific use is not well defined by the Standard Industrial Classification Manual(SIC)or by our LDC. Staff concurs with the applicant that the general use is consistent with the requested conditional uses listed above. As previously stated,the subject 15.97±acre site is located at 5051 Radio Road,generally at the north east quadrant of the intersection of Radio Road and Livingston Road,within the Briarwood PUD. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities.These impact fees are used to fimd projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan /'1 as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local I i Packet Page-872- 1 E 1 • 2/24/201517.8. 1 development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated ■ Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the I Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by . application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the 1 improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria 4 used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMPI IMPACT: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): i The 15.97± acre subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict,as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The requested conditional uses are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth i Management Plan in that the proposed use is commercial and will be located on land designed on the Briarwood PUD master plan as Community Commercial. As noted in this report Section, 6.2.C. of the PUD contains conditional uses consistent with those uses outlined in this request. Based on the above analysis, staff finds the above to be consistent with the Future Land Use 1 Element of the Growth Management Plan. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMNIISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on January 15, 2015. By a unanimous vote (6 to 0) with a motion made by Commissioner Ebert and seconded by Commissioner Homiak,the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following limitations: 1. Each suite may contain a water closet, and a limited mezzanine floor for an owner recreation lounge area limited to no more than 213's of the ground level floor area. All doors shall remain closed when the lounge is in use. Any exterior balconies shall be located internal to the subject development and not face any residential use. Residential uses are not permitted in the subject development including but not limited to guest houses,or guest suites,and any short or long term habitation. ; 2. Vehicle repair is not permitted. However, minor routine vehicle maintenance and detailing by the suite owner is allowed within the buildings/suites. All doors shall remain closed when maintenance and or detailing occurs. Outside hand washing of vehicles is permitted. 3. An 8-foot high masonry wallfence meeting LDC Section 5.03.02.H shall be provided along the perimeter of this development and the adjacent Briarwood residential uses 3 with the required Type B landscape buffer meeting LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2 standards located on the residential side of the wall/fence. Retained native vegetation within this buffer can be used to meet the landscape buffer plant requirements. 4. No amplified outdoor sound equipment or systems are allowed. 5. Speed limit signs shall be posted at 10 mph at both entries and every 100 feet along all drive lanes within the development. The speed limit signs shall also note that engine revving is not allowed. I 6. Building height shall be consistent with the Briarwood PUD standards. 7. Building floor area shall be consistent with the Briarwood PUD standards. /'\ r i x i i Packet Page-873- i 1 2/24/2015 17,B. I 1 '"`' 8. Owner shall provide a letter of approval for the architectural design. of the proposed g buildings consistent with the Briarwood PUD, 9. The Conceptual Master Plan shall be revised to be consistent with the above i limitations. These revisions have been incorporated into the Resolution document that is included in the draft . resolution. i No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the current proposal;no one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. Therefore,this petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. I LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Before you is a recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval of conditional uses in the Briarwood Planned Unit Development zoning district. A conditional use is a use that is permitted in a particular zoning district subject to certain restrictions. All testimony given must be under oath. The attached report and recommendations I of the Planning Commission are advisory only and are not binding on you Petitioner has the I burden of demonstrating that the necessary requirements have been met, and you may question Petitioner, or staff,to satisfy yourself that the necessary criteria has been satisfied. In addition to t meeting the necessary criteria, you may place such conditions and safeguards as you deem appropriate to allow the use, provided that there is competent, substantial evidence that these additional conditions and safeguards are necessary to promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals,order,comfort, convenience,appearance,or the general welfare of the neighborhood. As 1 a further condition of approval of the conditional use, you may require that suitable areas for streets, public rights-of-way, schools, parks, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use, subject to appropriate impact fee credits. Approval or denial of the Petition is by Resolution. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC including the , conditions noted in the approval motion and further recommends that the Board of Zoning i 1 Appeals approves the request subject to the attached Resolution. Prepared by: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Planning. and Zoning Department, Growth Management Division. Attachments: l) Staff Report 2) Resolution 3) Back-up information;Due to the size of this document,a web link has been provided for viewing at: t http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaFeb2415/GrowthMgmt/Application for CCP C 1-15-15 and BZA 2-24-15.pdf t i 1 Y y i i i Packet Page-874- I r 1 2 2/24/2015 17.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17,B. item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider a resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow Conditional Use#3, Private Clubs,and Conditional Use#5,Commercial and Private Parking Lots and Parking Garages,within the community commercial tract of the planned unit development pursuant to Section 6.2.0 of Ordinance No.95-33,the Briarwood Planned Unit Development,for property consisting of 15.97 acres located at the northeast corner of Livingston Road and Radio Road in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida [Petition CU-PL20130002048]. Meeting Date: 2/24/2015 Prepared By Name: SawyerMichael Title:Project Manager,Zoning&Land Development Review 1/29/2015 1:47:26 PM Approved By Name:BellowsRay Title:Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/29/2015 3:15:36 PM Name:BosiMichaei Title:Director-Planning and Zoning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/30/2015 8:31:11 AM Name:.Puigludy Title:Operations Analyst,Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 1/30/2015 5:04:22 PM Name:AshtonHeidi Title:Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation Date:2/3/2015 10:29:47 AM Packet Page-875- t 2/24/201517.8. Name:M.arcellajeanne Title:Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date:2/11/2015 8:52:49 AM Name:AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation Date:2/12/20.15 11:13:1.7 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date:2/12/2015 3:21:02 PM Name:FinnEd Title:Management/Budget Analyst,Senior,Transportation Engineering&Construction Management Date:2/17/2015 6:04:13 PM Name:OchsLeo Title:County Manager,County Managers Office Date:2/18/2015 8:39:36 AM • 1 �s. Packet Page-876- 6 1 2/24/2015 17.B. 1 1 r: Ca er Capinty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION,PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING: JANUARY 15,2015 I SUBJECT: PETITION CU-PL20130002048,PREMIER AUTO SUITES 1 PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: 1 Contract Purchaser: Owner: 1 Premier Auto Suites of Naples,LLC. Lowes Home Centers,Inc. 849 7th Avenue South 401 Elkin Highway Naples,Fl 34102 North Wilkesboro,Nc 28659 Agent: Fredrick E.Hook, AICP, Senior Planner Davidson Engineering,Inc. 4365 Radio Road Naples,Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Conditional Use pursuant to Briarwood PUD Ordinance 95-33, Section 6.2.C. The conditional uses being requested are as follows: Number 3, Private Clubs, and 5, Commercial and Private Parking Lots and Parking Garages. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:. The subject 15.97± acre site is located at 5051 Radio Road, generally at the north east quadrant of the intersection of Radio Road and Livingston Road, in Section 31, Township 49 South,Range 26 East,Folio Number 24755002504. i (See location map on the following page) T 1 CU-PL20130002048 Page 1 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use 1. December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14,12-15-14,12-17-14) i Packet Page-877- t 1 1 i 2/24/2015 17.B. 1 =2 l ` viz ° f 4 t� ` �plilifill HI 2 ---° ��� ,�► o aoo a�a �, , 1 -442,,,,741m ,---, I" irmall0 f 4 1 , MONIZAL : Wilaiiii. 11:::::::104 i pi is.Imarta lligaOOQ �-g� lielab gtoliinanart 1.1110 .,. :7.4tAidinimpAhMi . 4.illtio 1 ' < °°oar© aQOO -� , ; .; l�:h mA1B WOa�YAeG ^E�i 3 ° ° P ;, �1 4 dI ��: it:14.E p �► � r � �� � ;;#i;''�, �' ,�: 3.1..:rani" eeeeematlimbik2b'� _,�t, E �t� n. n „up onztianuanco z _MLE1111111111111 1 N 1 juuJJiRiIIjjiiit ��� �11�@ I I c' �1 1IuI !1IN1N ! NE awm ea ua At . U 4* Z ' x @x E 5 ti .1 . ti , hid$ o I s 1 � � � � LMMMIIII.k',. 6 s amnt>rwa,ea,an,vile* -- ,-- --- , . ,, ..r. 4. a V 1 Pr 3” 111 1161.1111Enit <I rte- rag L t PI EN 1LIWiii 1 E— _ 15 ea:ra1 g ii i 1 " id ■ l. hi $ a Si $ } t y shy lEa17.. Packet Page-878- I i 2/24/2015 17.B. . 11 i triv aut rrn a '-1 ..:iii. w. p�oreof. viaini..!n,m,-a .'n/1 JlI'_� `..�..-_w_ �� )111 ) .- _, i a 1 e !'!xu101E _1g 0 1. rl 1, 1 ,, :;I i 1 1,.$.1. iii 1 r ' ! _yi gi ! --% ,i i;! ! i .a " d 1.1o111 l -1E1 ! 111 1I I" E1 lily gil ! Ii 1 1!;1111 i 1I 0 1;,. ,....0,...-:-— . ,i,, 'fit it 'MR ..''1:utigl�� , 1 , I"'1 iI II F!--, al'rr� 0//7, 4, q .'�J fret,i _,�,1 ti i .S. ,, 3F til h ,40..;47.,,-.-.., 1 i alp•+ li f e'' ' • L1 c----- , 1 . + t � g n "t N is r m.i . i�0` i! ! m' s11 1 11 1 a T ;; 741 •.. ,5dra < ?^^-,t trte.41 .+t 1.1 i g, l, irk ��, __. .._ l_ .�rY.-.--s... i' i tF li` 1„,,,, w.s WNW w ...13•VAMwer WOVW1,...un.r.nw - r- 110.111 1.■1Wevils 1 . i Conceptual Site Plan i 1 ""- l CU-PL20130002048 Page 3 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14,12-16-14,12-17-14) i Packet Page-879- 1 t I A ti 2/24/2015 17.B. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: As noted above the Petitioner has applied for a Conditional Use as provided for in the Briarwood PUD Ordinance 95-33, Section 6.2.C, Specifically the conditional uses being requested are as follows: Number 3,Private Clubs,and 5, Commercial and Private Parking Lots and Parking Garages. The subject property was previously developed as a golf driving range and is currently vacant. The Conceptual Site Plan depicts the proposed site improvements consistent of approximately ten buildings including a central clubhouse building. The remaining buildings are composed of member owned garage suites generally described as luxury garage suites or"man caves". As noted in Attachment E, project narrative, the operational characteristics of this use is a hybrid of the requested conditional uses and will functionally be more in-line with other multi-tenant developments by providing luxury garage suites for the unit/suite owners. It is staff's understanding that the intended use of these garage suites will include owner display of unique collectable grade vehicles and include recreational lounge areas as well as storage of more common types of vehicles. The suites cannot be used for any short or long term residential use. Staff notes that this specific use is not well defined by the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC)or by our LDC. Staff concurs with the applicant that the general use is consistent with the requested conditional uses listed above. As previously stated, the subject 15.97± acre site is located at 5051 Radio Road, generally at the north east quadrant of the intersection of Radio Road and Livingston Road,within the Briarwood PUD. SURROUNDING LAND USE&ZONING:, North Developed residential parcels,with a zoning designation of Residential Planned Unit Development(PUD),specifically the Briarwood PUD. South: Radio Road ROW,then developed residential parcels with a zoning designation of Residential Planned Unit Development(PUD).,specifically the Foxfire PUD. East: Developed residential parcels,with a zoning designation of Residential Planned Unit Development(PUD),specifically the Briarwood PUD. West: Livingston Road ROW,then undeveloped parcels with a zoning designation of Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD),specifically the Lane Park CPUD. I CU-PL20130002048 Page 4 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14, 12-16-14, 12-17-14) a Packet Page-880- 2/24/2015 17.B. n" F'$`r it ' R' 7,'.' -t' ' :{.., ,-�.�.�.�y .ror:� -.-- �. _ !---- , z . e,...3,-:,' ! ., Premier Auto Suites . _` g'r. - ! CU-PL20130002048 1 : . . -q ;� - , Fes , ` per, , T:. 'r,,i- _ �I 11, I , 6 1,- * 1 Ilit , r�t N�� S.wAa- s✓ _ h34"ffY�rePS _P y+1 .�j •6 y.uaoi Y2 roi u-f ` ,. --- 'pC$ �jir---- ,c-fir `' v '.�`"°- yg a r I • !.t ■ Lei _'...e r s^° ...if..3i,Anrw.m MI1?tilxnc E 5,"" . v,. k4,'-'t,,.. .. ,o . ; Aerial Photo GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The requested conditional uses are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan in that the proposed use is commercial and will be located on land designed on the Briarwood PUD master plan as Community Commercial. As noted in i this report Section, 6:).C. of the PUD contains conditional uses consistent with those uses outlined in this request. Based on the above analysis,staff finds the above to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Element (TE): The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 CU-PL20130002048 Page 5 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14,12-16-14,12-17-14) f Packet Page-881- 1 i 1 1 2/24/2015 17.B. year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). S Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element(CCME). Environmental Services staff has reviewed the Conditional Use petition to address environmental concerns. The project site consists of 0.09 acres of preserve, which is part of the larger PUD preserve requirement. The 0.09 preserve connects to and is part of a larger two-acre preserve to the north; both have been platted. The Preserve onsite is shown on the Briarwood Plaza Plat. Gopher Tortoise exist on the site in the northern vegetated portion of the site and are planned for relocation off-site from the Briarwood PUD, This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council(SAC)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. ANALYSIS: Before any conditional use can be approved the Collier County Planning Commission must determine if the petition meets the following provisions,finding that 1)granting approval of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest;2)all specific requirements for the individual conditional use are met; and 3)satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters,where applicable: 1. Section 6.2.0 of the Briarwood PUD, Ordinance. 95-33, permits conditional uses for Tracts B and C, Community Commercial portions of this Planned Unit Development(PUD)Zoning District. The requested private clubs, and commercial and private parking lots and parking garages uses are permitted as conditional uses within Tracts B and C of the Briarwood PUD subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00, Conditional Use Procedures, of the LDC. and in the Administrative Code for land development. The petition request meets the conditional use provisions of this zoning district as well as the standards and procedures of the LDC and Administrative Code. 2. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. As noted above, this proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the FLUE, the Transportation Element and the CCME Element; therefore the petition is consistent with the overall GMP. The proposal may also be found consistent with all of the applicable provisions of the LDC. 3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic. flow and control,and access in case of fire or catastrophe. CU-PL20130002048 Page 6 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14,12-16-14,12-17-14) Packet Page-882- . 2/24/201517.8. 1 1 As shown on the Concept Site Plan vehicular access to the site is currently provided on this developed parcel and will not be relocated with the new development. With regard to traffic on public right-of-ways,Transportation Planning staff indicates that they have reviewed this petition and determined that there are no outstanding issues concerning vehicular access and traffic control. g 4. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise,glare,economic or odor effects. The applicant has indicated in the application that there are adequate areas provided for landscape buffering adjacent to the residential district to the north and east of the proposed development. Understanding that this is a use not previously proposed in our county, it is staffs opinion that the development as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan in combination with a masonry wall/fence meeting LDC 5.03.02.11. will substantially address noise, glare and odor effects. Staff is not in agreement with the applicants request to use the rear facade of the buildings adjacent to the residential buildings to the north and east in place of the LDC required masonry wall/fence. The types of vehicles using this facility include some that have performance and or aftermarket exhaust systems that can cause enhanced Ievels of noise, which is a concern given that this facility will be open. 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. Additionally the conceptually staggered configuration of the buildings, cannot by itself, fully eliminate associated noise "bounce" due to normal echo effects between buildings. This echo effect will likely result in enhanced noise levels to be reflected or bounced into the adjacent residences. Staff is recommending conditions of approval to partly address this issue. It is also possible that additional noise could occur due some of the accessory uses envisioned by this conditional use given the 24 hour operational nature of the proposed facility. Staff is further recommending conditions of approval to partly address this issue. Based on the information provided by the applicant staff is of the opinion that the proposed project including the recommended conditions should not generally generate additional noise,glade, and odor or otherwise generate undesirable economic impact on the neighborhood above those permitted in this community commercial tract. 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. As previously noted the site is adjacent to residential lands all of which are developed parcels. Staff believes that with the recommended condition,plus the LDC required site development elements, the project wilt be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff therefore believes that the propose Conditional Use to allow the proposed uses of i private clubs, and commercial and private parking lots and parking garages uses can be deemed compatible with the neighboring properties. Furthermore, staff believes the recommended condition of approval in combination with the proposed master site plan improvements and LDC standards adequutPly protect the public's interest. CU-PL20130002048 Page 7 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14,12-16-14,12-17-14) Packet Page-883- 2/24/2015 17.B. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING fNIM): 2 Due to an error in the original NIM Naples Daily News Advertisement the applicant was required to conduct two NIM meetings: The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the first NIIv1 on September 30,2014,at 5:30 PM at the Naples Airport,Naples,and Fl. Further,the agent/applicant duly noticed and held the second NIM on December 1, 2014, at 5:30 PM at the Naples Library,Naples,Fl, Please see both of the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Summaries (Attachment C). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County.Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for CU-PL201300002048. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition. CU-PL20130002048, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Each suite may contain a water closet,and a limited mezzanine floor for an owner recreation lounge area limited to no more than 2/3's of the ground level floor area. All doors shall remain closed when the lounge is in use. Any exterior balconies shall be located internal to the subject development and not face any residential use. Residential uses are not permitted in the subject development including but not limited to guest houses,or guest suites,and any short or long term habitation. 2. Vehicle repair is not permitted. However,minor routine vehicle maintenance and detailing by the suite owner is allowed within the buildings/suites. All doors shall remain closed when maintenance and or detailing occurs. Outside hand washing of vehicles is permitted. 3. An 8 foot high masonry wall/fence meeting LDC 5.03.02.H shall be provided along the perimeter of this development and the adjacent Briarwood residential uses with the required Type B landscape buffer meeting LDC 4.06,02.C.2 standards located on the residential side of the wall/fence. Retained native vegetation within this buffer can use used to meet the landscape buffer plant requirements. 4. No amplified outdoor sound equipment or systems are allowed. CU-PL20130002048 Page 8 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15.14,12-16-14,12-17-14) Packet Page-884- I t 2/24/2015 17.B. 5. d limit signs shall be pee gt posted at 10 mph at both entries and every 100 feet alone all drive lanes within the development, The speed limit signs shall also note that engine revving is not allowed. ii Attachments: A. Application. B. Draft Resolution C. NtM meeting summaries. i CU-PL20130002048 Page 9 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14, 12-16-14, 12-17-14) Packet Page-885- i 2/24/2015 17.B. PREPARED BY: I t.. f • 1.2 . 14 I‘ CH SAWY Di= • ` t ET MANAGER DATE PLANNING AND ZONIN DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: 7a4-4 , Z• RAYMO V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANN AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 12- f)- MICHAEL BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: 11447 -' 1y "NIC -'CAS°' AN UIDA,4 41NISTRATOR. DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION I CU-PL20130002048 Page 10 of 10 Premier Auto Suites,Conditional Use December 12,2014(revised:12-15-14, 12-16-14,12-17-14) Packet Page-886- 3 2/24/2015 17.B. RESOLUTION NO.2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER ri COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW CONDITIONAL USE #3, PRIVATE CLUBS, AND CONDITIONAL USE #5, COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE PARKING LOTS AND PARKING GARAGES, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TRACT OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.2.0 OF ORDINANCE NO. 95-33, THE BRIARWOOD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FOR PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 15.97 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND RADIO ROAD IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PETITION CU-PL201.30002048j WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246,Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant therein has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses;and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as provided in said regulations, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use to allow Conditional Use#3, Private Clubs, and Conditional Use#5, commercial and private parking lots and parking garages, within the community commercial tract of the Briarwood Planned Unit Development on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that: Petition Number CU-PL20130002048, filed by Frederick E. Hood, AICP of Davidson En.gineeting, Inc, representing Premier Auto Suites of Naples, LLC, with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit A, be and the same is hereby approved for the establishment of a 1 [14-CPS-01362/1151225/1]42 1 oft Rev.215/15 Packet Page-887- 2/24/2015 17.B. Conditional Use within the community commercial tract of the Briarwood Planned Unit Development pursuant to Sections 6.7.C.(3) and (5) of Ordinance No. 95-33, the Briarwood Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Conceptual site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit C. Exhibits A,B and C are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this 1 Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super-majority vote, this day of ,2015. ( ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA • a By: By: Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: 7. Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments:Exhibit A-Legal Description Exhibit B-Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit C—Conditions of Approval 14-CPS-01362/115122511]42 2 of 2 Rev.2.'5115 Packet Page-888- , 1 AIM 2/24/2015 17.B. DC PYL'?c'J 1 ATTACHMENT "C" LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACTS A AND B, "BRIARWOOD PLAZA", ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, PAGES 24 AND 25,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WESTERLY 100 FEET AND SOUTHERLY 25 FEET OF TRACT A; AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: A PORTION OF TRACT"A"OF"BRIARWOOD PLAZA",ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, PAGES 24 AND 25, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER OCUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE .NORTH 00°16'23" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION ft 31, A DISTANCE OF 75.07 FEET;THENCE NORTH 87°46'05" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 100.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°16'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 45.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH I. 45°58'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 62.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8T46'05" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 45.00 FEET TO THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 695,507.89 SQUARE FEET OF 15.97 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. Exhibit A 1 Premiere Auto Suites CU:Attachment C- ' Legal Description July 2014 www.davldsonengineering.com Packet Page-889- I. if _■ . . . _ _ . • 2/24/20151TB. C.5%.13PO BOA OW, \. \ ......_ k ..ay Dray xWSURw1-anms'" 1170140 . \ . ''' '. ------------"---- --; `,-:::-• ;\ - . , k $ p.: .+IN. . '.-\'41'.•.•t;\\ \ a.. ..., 7 lg.., ki k fi ___,____-___,,..„....,_,,____,... . ...t.thm___-___. ...,----w_ „,................... . ..t..\:-.:. ,,, ,:\i„.., , 1 i - • --------- - ' - , k : . ti .)i. ., a .. .,.,.. , ! ,1 p 1 - -t ,, I I _ - -- ;w :; 11 r.'r � :c��I � j IP Dig >✓T .`G. �. t .":yti> T'•!.'.�Jr/^,-/ter /i t 44" i. t'..... „ ' -rho oBnamn "y"` +`,. t•,/,.11 le ...4i P s,"' ♦ { r i.' '� '' _'. _ it l'. f• �roe .... - ..... ,..7 i .i..i. • .:./. ,P.-;^7,..1 ^r' � ,. ' i «u ,. ) `:� - :, : /, p ,•.;,.. , ' - @ i I I -. "' tt / i' \11 -- ...nk r. • N111,1.; ` /$.- I,\{ 11 t 44,j t if 1 l 1*_141 14 1 :)'''!..../wh'-. ---He.%---- V /j1/1 e . ti :1 k .‘,. , ./.-._;:: : . . >„,, ,,..i.s.,>>.,N.,... ...•.„0,,,, III CI) m' 1A3 ., k , ,,...,\ '''. J.A?' r. . 'y .y. ',pe:?....3.‘, ,..-- .._.,r,.--_-_,;,..-5.-,...• • :\ i , "kt,.. '"-- 1 �r Br.m♦y�m:�NS..if.m�7••w-yy r..1lfilra.11 BHa4 BO OBr, alm :•, kg. ?-1.5-?.,1 't1� ITT]S 5 { {Did m "snx pm 0 2 ro3 z ry B -b- 1 {.;•;. m� I 10 .= -5' 11 I� im ?p^r�•I EIm 5,mpm,Z ='m h p`,i." � $I o y 0 C = c Il c r �y[mi q p.„•< as 1Z m y ,SZ_ 2.13 s k ;-." ( +,' tt i +3 I- (! .. r- .-43101 M 7a rye:1 1 ; 'aj N Z m sr F: w Z .". �.,4 ]-LA �i,p .'D r Si •n 3 O "'^.c m-• -9 D )4 n,0 GI T rn r- [� s?�a � y in I'fl p p r fi b p p• z ID z U Z ° cl•,S ••+y {•u .-. D -� -�I xj "C r?.c t�Tl z?f7 z i iZ Z -.1 a'� .v 10.N $w ltd Z ;;‘,;,,A og �c > 0 m g 1 R. 'w m mm4' -, z (m p.E'o U [Bma g 50 i' n z o c C TI .m Z OQ m (1' '9 i U m A.... mom -a B rrt, m t y 'c -i m imps :V m f11 (Tog rn ci, tvt i,=; i 0 ns 0: it z o 0 'e d ° 'ocl z z Cl Vj o Z v -4 ym n x m s`D 'o. bO 111 Tmg .ypz °.e.. � °^S c �y ti s [?a E�8�cz rc„a 4�rmn u xl^ e� oc IA [ To o°O IN {CTS ,-7 bb= yw� f�Tl m �i, cA NO a =gmAmmm tY :••1, 4-g. 0mo z OgM ta" 0 „, �z A -n •n •n i m;in r-t mm,rl PIi1 'y ,q 4 o' E.A 1 y f t I i{ PI2EMIEA AUTO SUITES OF NAPLES I. • �•.n••m rnc'�'. ,%•,w$2`✓T,�.43 -{rte —� .A Al' , vIU a4yT01 I f.- 167' C` . °_,44..`•..�v _.� If R1RL 1. .troa P• m^usa t , iV ,e. lip C0NCEPTUALS i ,>v. 1(-�•--} _t 1 ,i �'i, .�°- —. ;L_ .___ -._-.Packet Page-890-�I = � ";_--_ ..__...... __ Exhibit B __ i 3 t 3 2/24/2015 17.B. . • i } 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CU-PL220130002048 i 1 1. Each suite may contain a water closet, and a limited mezzanine floor for an owner I recreation lounge area limited to no more than 2/3`s of the ground level floor area, All doors shall remain closed when the lounge is in use. Any exterior balconies shall be located internal to the subject development and not face any residential use. Residential uses are not permitted in the subject development including but not limited to guest 1 houses,or guest'suites,and any short or long term habitation. i i II 2. No vehicle repair is permitted. However, minor routine vehicle maintenance and detailing by the suite owner is allowed within the building/suites. All doors shall remain / closed when maintenance and/or detailing occurs. Outside hand washing of vehicles is permitted. 3. An 8 foot high masonry wall/fence meeting LDC 5,03.02.H shall be provided along the perimeter of this development and the adjacent Briarwood residential uses with the required Type B landscape buffer meeting LDC 4.06.02.C.2 standards located on the residential side of the wall/fence. Retained native vegetation within this buffer can be I used to meet the landscape buffer plant requirements. I 4. No amplified outdoor sound equipment or systems are allowed. 5. Speed limit signs shall be posted at 10 mph at both entries and every 100 feet along all drive lanes within the subject development. The speed limit signs shall also note that engine revving is not allowed. 6. Building height shall be consistent with.Briarwood PUD standards. 1 i 7. Building floor area shall be consistent with Briarwood PUD standards. 1 8. Owner shall provide a letter of approval for the architectural design of the proposed buildings per Briarwood PUD prior to final SDP approval of the pending phased development. i K i I 1 a r 1 1 EXHIBIT C [14-CPS-01362/1151226/1]43 J Rcr.2/ 115 t 1 i Packet Page-891- i E 3 2/24/2015 17.B; NAPLES DAILY NEWS a Wednesday,.February 4,2015 K 290 • . I I NOTICE OF MEETING . . NOTICE OF MEETING . . • , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ' Notice is hereby given that the Board of County'Conimissioners, as the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,February .24,.2015,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail'East, Naples, Florida."The. meeting"will commence at 9:00 A.M:The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING 'APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW CONDITIONAL USE #3, PRIVATE.'CUIBS,AND CONDITIONAL USE•#5," • i COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE PARKING LOTS AND PARKING GARAGES,WITHIN THE.. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TRACT.OF. THE.PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT" PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.2,C OF ORDINANCE NO. 95-33, THE BRIARWOOD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FOR PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 15.97.ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND RADIO ROAD•, IN SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH.RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. I (CU-PL201300020481 A copy of the proposed-Resolution Is on file,with the Clerk to the Board'and is available far"inspecnon.All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard: NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County manager prior to presentation•of the agenda item td be addressed. N:i Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any Item.The selection of any individual .to. speak on behalf of an. organization or group is encouraged_ If • recognized by the Chairman; a spokesperson for a group or organization may be • allotted 10 minutes to speak on an Item. •Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda • packets must submit"said„material a minimum.of-3_weeks prior to the respective public hearing. in any case,'written matera>`S" intended.to be considered by the' Board shall be submitted to the."appropriate County:staff a minimum of seven days prior to the:public hearing,.:All materials used in presentations before the-Board will becorne•a permanent part of the remit. . . .' '• Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board 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 based. ' If you are a person with a disability who needs any aecoinmodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled, at no"cost to you,to the provision ' of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail'East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356 . (239)252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting: Assisted listening devices for • the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TIM NANCE,CHAIRMAN ' DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK •- • By:Ann lennefohn,Deputy Clem(SEAL) Fnhruerv4 7015 Nn.7047345 • • I 1 • Packet Page-892- 1• • 1